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?

A lot of this stuff sounds like ‘statistics’ from a momentum meeting, you know the ones who lost the election, because most people don’t want what they promised

In deprived areas that have virtually no immigration? People are not able to get their kids in schools because of immigration? Even in much discussed Boston its 95 percent get their choice primary.

You can vote out of fear of immigration but if it doesn't directly effect you it has to be questioned what you are afraid of and why.

malylis I haven't voted this way. Labour have lost lots of traditionally safe seats. There must be a reason. Why do you think people are voting for UKIP? Why have Labour lost their traditional working class supporters? I'm not worried by immigration - I like diversity & work in a very diverse school. It's interesting meeting people from all over. But not everyone feels this way.

Why are people in North West Durham, Bishop Auckland, Darlington, Bolsover etc scared of immigration?

Maybe because these are areas that have faced the toughest cuts to public spending and the immigration bogeyman is blamed, mostly due to the press and media attention.

Not actually on their lives from immigration, but the fear of it.

People are scared of ghosts too.

No idea 🤷‍♀️

I think we've detailed the thread anyhow. I think the OP has made some valid points & I think community socialism on a local level is what she is suggesting. Not a terrible idea.

It sounds like Daves Big Society, in a slightly more goady and less matey package.

Socialism on a local level is charity.

Lets try proper free market capitalism that you all ascribe to.

See how long you like it.

Currently we have socialism when it suits the wealthy.

The traditional Labour heartlands have been neglected since Thatcher. My understanding is most of these areas didn’t even actually have high levels of EU immigration and so I think members of the both the official Leave campaign like Gove, Johnson and Farage as head of UKIP and then Leave.Eu chose to blame problems on immigrants rather than the true causes of low investment and stagnation in such areas.

to explain better to my comment above, I think leaders of the Leave campaign in traditional Labour heartlands chose to irresponsibly suggest immigration was the reason for the problems in these massively under invested and neglected towns as a way to garner votes for their campaign to leave the EU when they knew it wasn’t immigration that was the cause for the problems in these areas.

The sad thing is many figures in the Leave campaign are big supporters of free market economics and though many EU members govts have also adopted free market economic policies these figures would like even more deregulation which they know can be achieved by not being a member of the EU that still supports some regulation and protection of labour rights.

I think the evidence is there that the state can provide better support and dignity to those in need than patchy community initiatives. It’s why I could never support Cameron’s big society rubbish that was just a way of advocating for less state support.

I’ve lived in a country where they have but very little public services but almost no income taxes. As a high earner I was much better off with no taxes even after paying for health insurance for wholly private care. I am not suggesting that for the UK but Marylis argument that if Tory voters stopped contributing to public services and paid privately they would be worse off is not true. Many people would be better off.

I’m not a Tory voter and don’t want that sort of society but we have to recognize that some people are contributing and others are not.

People wouldn't be better off, the bast majority of people would be worse off if they had to pay for services, a very small number of people would be. But then as we are removing everything that's socialised then they'd have to pay for police protection too, private courts, and all other public goods.

Seriously lets go for full blown free market capitalism and see how long it lasts.

"we have to recognise that some people are contributing and others are not".

Society facilitates those who are higher earners to a great extent, in fact they benefit more from society than others.

People already do:

We have credit unions, food co-ops, farmshares, housing co-ops etc. But that's about as far as socialist ideals can go without direct state involvement because, by definition, socialism involves state ownership OP!

Or state regulation ruffle (conviniently missed from the definition by righties on here).

Keen, smug British socialists may want to research what happens to the poor, feckless and disabled (ie non-contributors) under 'proper' communism. It's not vey naice.

'The left don't love the poor, they hate the rich.'

Nobody is proposing proper communism, of course it can be argued that none of the forms of communism that have been implemented are actually proper communism.

'I’ve lived in a country where they have but very little public services but almost no income taxes.'

If be interested to know what happened about infrastructure, like sewers, roads, transport. Street cleaning, schools (suppose they can all be paid for individually more easily), army etc

I'm reading a book about right wing principles and it makes the point that people are more than happy to have the money spent on things they see as important.

When people say they don't want to pay tax to benefit everyone they want to do it themselves, they are usually thinking of quite specific parts, not the whole lot. Which isn't very logical really.

There has never been anything remotely like communism anywhere. Communism is the total absence of private property (as opposed to personal property: You can own your house, but you can't own someone else's house.)

It was one of Margaret Thatcher's most facile arguments, that people who objected to tax cuts could voluntarily pay more tax. If fact, you can't. PAYE would refund you. And neither would you be able to claim free prescriptions, free bus fares or other benefits you propose the extra tax would pay for without committing crime.

You can see what it looks like when there is private affluence and public squalour, to quote JK Galbriath. Those are the societies where the rich live behind high walls and barbed wire and employ security guards.

If you have that level of disposable income, you are welcome to buy a one-way plane ticket.

@marylis - how on earth does “society facilitate those who are higher earners”? Considering that they are the ones paying for benefits and public services? Please explain!

@fraggling - there wasn’t any income taxes but were a few other taxes (eg import duties). The government did maintain the roads and sewers and pay for public schools (although many went private) and they were fine, no worse than the U.K. I don’t believe there was anything beyond the most basic of welfare payments though and very limited state healthcare (although I wasn’t a citizen so wouldn’t have been able to claim anyway.).

Wages were high though and life was good for many with no public signs of poverty. But I didn’t experience poverty there so can’t comment on that. This example was in response to someone who said that higher earners would be worse off in this kind of society. In my experience they would be much better off.

@Fraggling - interestingly aren’t sewers in England run privately?

Of course society facilitates those who are gigh earners. Do they pay directly for all the benefits society brings them? Do they pay for each road journey taken? Do they pay their staff enough to fund private healthcare and schooling? Would businesses be able to run without a healthy and educated population? The list is endless.

If you don't understand this maybe you shouldn't be debating economics

As you won't be specific about the country you lived in, I'm not going to believe you.

It'll turn out to be Singapore or somewhere which will be funny as fuck

@malylis - your post is bonkers and I’m afraid you’re the one who shouldn’t be debating economics. Net contributors (in the UK broadly higher rate tax payers) are paying for more than they are using. And that’s an average of what they are using not including things such as that they are more likely to be using private education and healthcare anyway. Many higher earners don’t have staff and the fact that we have benefits, etc mean that they are paid more than they otherwise would be as they have better alternatives. I have extended family in an Asian country- many people there are happy to do domestic work for just food and board. If they don’t have money for healthcare or education, they don’t get it.

It’s those who are paying in less than they are using who are being facilitated.

There are many countries in the world with low income tax and high standards of living. I lived in one but who cares if you choose to believe me or not.

You are stuck in your momentum bubble of economic illiteracy. If the Labour Party doesn’t get rid of types like you they have no chance