Topic: What is Socialism?

[vagabond]

I get the feeling that many here self-identify as socialists. That doesn't seem to stop many heated arguments between us across political threads. So I'm curious what people here take socialism to be. What are its core principles? Which are up for compromise and which are not? Is it purely a class issue or does it also intersect across racial, gender and other social categories? Do you understand your socialism to be purely an economic commitment or is there more to it? Does socialism itself demand something of us with regards to the climate for instance or is that a broader issue?

There are of course other issues tied up with it---namely, how do we set up a socialist society? How do we persuade the non-socialists of the obvious need for a socialist society? If possible I'd like to avoid these questions here. I just want to know what people think socialism itself is and not how we implement it.

[vagabond]

I would also be curious what we think socialism demands of us on the geopolitical stage---does it require anything of us in terms of foreign policy?

[Sangria]

Why do we need to persuade others of the rightfulness of socialism? If a government increases funding to education, healthcare, reduces poverty, helps those in need, etc. are they socialist? Does it matter if they are socialist? If a socialist supports all of these things and other tenets of socialism, but does nothing to effect them, are they better socialists than a government that does all the above but does not hold to all tenets of socialism?

[vagabond]

Why do we need to persuade others of the rightfulness of socialism? If a government increases funding to education, healthcare, reduces poverty, helps those in need, etc. are they socialist? Does it matter if they are socialist? If a socialist supports all of these things and other tenets of socialism, but does nothing to effect them, are they better socialists than a government that does all the above but does not hold to all tenets of socialism?

I assume we would need to persuade others of socialism so that they would vote for the party that would enact those policies?

But again, I'd rather not, if possible, get into a discussion of how we implement socialist policies. I am curious what everyone here thinks socialist policies actually are.

[[new username under construction]]

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more................oh wait

[Sangria]

I assume we would need to persuade others of socialism so that they would vote for the party that would enact those policies?

But again, I'd rather not, if possible, get into a discussion of how we implement socialist policies. I am curious what everyone here thinks socialist policies actually are.

If people want to vote Labour to increase funding for the NHS, education, etc., but do not care to think about socialism and all its variations, do we still need to educate them about socialism? How many people who don't identify as socialists voted Labour into power between 1997 and 2010? How many people who identified as socialists refused to vote Labour because they felt Labour wasn't properly socialist? Which were better for the cause of socialism, the non-socialists who voted for a Labour government, or the socialists who refused to vote for a Labour government?

[oldfordie]

We are really talking about ideology here, Ideology makes people loose sight of the goal.
I wonder how many people who vote look at the word socialism as a positive nowadays.
My view of what Labour should be is simple. Jims speech is spot on for me. 3 min 44 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9llMV9qGc

[bornandbRED]

Capitalism is too deeply ingrained in this country for it to ever become truly socialist in an economic sense. The recent election depicts the appetite for a true left wing government, which proposed a manifesto which was Diet Coke when viewed through the lens of ‘true socialism’. It will not happen any time soon.

My realistic nirvana for socialism within the UK would be a system that provides opportunity, education, healthcare and general baseline welfare to all, no matter their class, colour or religious leaning. To have a moral, common sense approach to issues from foreign policy & sustainability to drug policy & immigration. To encourage an inclusive society at the forefront of worldwide democracy. 
 
Social inequality will always exist to some extent - but a government which attempts to bridge the gap for the least fortunate amongst us as much as it can, whilst maintaining an economy which rewards the gifted & talented would be sufficiently ‘socialist’ in my eyes.

[Something Worse]

Nobody needing a food bank, or going broke paying for healthcare would be the base line.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

We are really talking about ideology here, Ideology makes people loose sight of the goal.
I wonder how many people who vote look at the word socialism as a positive nowadays.
My view of what Labour should be is simple. Jims speech is spot on for me. 3 min 44 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9llMV9qGc

i’d say a lot of people who identify as ‘socialist’ when you dig a bit more they’re more like a scandi/german social democrat

think people look on the word ‘socialism’ is the countries where it was tried (and the cheerleaders claimed was socialism when it was going well) like your venezuela/Cuba/Bolivia ends in utter disaster and ironically far greater inequality (and those cheerleaders subsequently claim it wasn’t actually socialism), which is why I hope the next labour leader avoids using that word as it will be easy for opponents to draw the link

[Sangria]

i’d say a lot of people who identify as ‘socialist’ when you dig a bit more they’re more like a scandi/german social democrat

think people look on the word ‘socialism’ is the countries where it was tried (and the cheerleaders claimed was socialism when it was going well) like your venezuela/Cuba/Bolivia ends in utter disaster and ironically far greater inequality (and those cheerleaders subsequently claim it wasn’t actually socialism), which is why I hope the next labour leader avoids using that word as it will be easy for opponents to draw the link

It would work better by identifying the individual components as British values, and avoiding the socialism word entirely.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

It would work better by identifying the individual components as British values, and avoiding the socialism word entirely.

very true

[oldfordie]

i’d say a lot of people who identify as ‘socialist’ when you dig a bit more they’re more like a scandi/german social democrat

think people look on the word ‘socialism’ is the countries where it was tried (and the cheerleaders claimed was socialism when it was going well) like your venezuela/Cuba/Bolivia ends in utter disaster and ironically far greater inequality (and those cheerleaders subsequently claim it wasn’t actually socialism), which is why I hope the next labour leader avoids using that word as it will be easy for opponents to draw the link

Am not so sure people in this country favour the Scandi socialist system. I think the big difference is people in Scandinavia are prepared to pay for to improve the standard of living for everyone, the socialists in this country expect companies and the rich to pay.
I doubt the average person understands what happened in Venezuela but many would probably give a very basic answer which is correct. Socialists who never had a clue on how to run a country. they rightly fear the same happening here.
I would avoid the word Socialist as well. Comrades another word people aren't impressed with.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

To me - proper levels of tax for individuals, businesses and corporations to fund things in the country for the good of the citizens - a safety net for those that are in dire straits and a fair and equal system that everyone benefits from.

If people want to pay privately for stuff then that's fine, but not to the detriment of getting rid of stuff for everyone else.

I think that Business and Workers need to be in alignment with a partnership. Great employees drive companies forward and well rewarded, engaged workers that share in the dividends and success are likely to be more successful, proactive and valuable employees. Everyone wins: Business and Corporations and Workers and Society.


So I think for me that Socialism in a Capitalist country is all about fairness, equality, access to good stuff to all and people to be treated as valuable.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Am not so sure people in this country favour the Scandi socialist system. I think the big difference is people in Scandinavia are prepared to pay for to improve the standard of living for everyone, the socialists in this country expect companies and the rich to pay.

true, everyone in scandi countries has to pay high taxes (which I don’t think will fly here, one of the good things the Tories have done on this front is raise the personal allowance quite a bit), the socialists seem to think businesses and the rich are a never ending orange they can constantly squeeze and don’t seem to get that massive tax hikes for them means a significant number of them will go and they won’t get close to getting what they think, so you have to borrow as making cutbacks won’t go down well and the vicious cycle begins

I doubt the average person understands what happened in Venezuela but many would probably give a very basic answer which is correct. Socialists who never had a clue on how to run a country. they rightly fear the same happening here.
I would avoid the word Socialist as well. Comrades another word people aren't impressed with.

ive always felt anyone who praised venezuela who claimed to be experts on it should never be allowed to run anything of any great importance as it was quite obvious early on it wasn’t a good path (getting the oil workers to swear allegiance to Chavez, loads of them go to work across the border in Colombia), and of course the path down authoritarism (ditto with Bolivia where quite a few of them recently were supporting the old president who did more than a fair few questionable things)

The word comrade though, it’s just weird hearing grown adults on stage using that word, like some sort of soviet cosplay or something, don’t think they realise how weird a lot of people thought they were with stuff like the language and the chantimg

[oldfordie]

ive always felt anyone who praised venezuela who claimed to be experts on it should never be allowed to run anything of any great importance as it was quite obvious early on it wasn’t a good path (getting the oil workers to swear allegiance to Chavez, loads of them go to work across the border in Colombia), and of course the path down authoritarism (ditto with Bolivia where quite a few of them recently were supporting the old president who did more than a fair few questionable things)

The word comrade though, it’s just weird hearing grown adults on stage using that word, like some sort of soviet cosplay or something, don’t think they realise how weird a lot of people thought they were with stuff like the language and the chantimg

Yeah,I think there are comparisons to Corbyn and what happened in Venerzuala I found very worrying. it was more about the impact of your policies on the economy and how this leads to a downward spiral which ends in disaster. it's a point ive tried to make a few times, good intentions aren't enough when it comes to running a Country, Chavez was genuine when he took over the country but every solution he brought in to solve a economic problem actually made the problem far worse, last time I checked inflation was running at 1 million %. population trying to flee the country as shops empty. it's a nightmare.
Thats without getting into the corruption at the top and the abuse of Socialist polices for personal gain by the people of the country.

[ScottScott]

Nobody needing a food bank, or going broke paying for healthcare would be the base line.

I would agree with this as a base line yeah

[ScottScott]

We are really talking about ideology here, Ideology makes people loose sight of the goal.
I wonder how many people who vote look at the word socialism as a positive nowadays.
My view of what Labour should be is simple. Jims speech is spot on for me. 3 min 44 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9llMV9qGc

This an excellent point, especially the bit about socialism being looked at as a positive nowadays. It's an ideal IMO. A lot of people I speak to would see 'socialism' as being too far left and that's people who live in Liverpool (albeit people who would class themselves as middle class)

To me it's looking out for every single person, regardless of status. The people who can, paying more to help out, those who are struggling getting the help they need so they can start to contribute. No one left behind

[Sangria]

This an excellent point, especially the bit about socialism being looked at as a positive nowadays. It's an ideal IMO. A lot of people I speak to would see 'socialism' as being too far left and that's people who live in Liverpool (albeit people who would class themselves as middle class)

To me it's looking out for every single person, regardless of status. The people who can, paying more to help out, those who are struggling getting the help they need so they can start to contribute. No one left behind

A difference is between those who see socialism as something to aspire towards. Shankly would understand the incomplete journey that Blair took. And those who see socialism as a doctrine defined by texts. Which is the socialism that Corbyn and his ilk follow. Remember that moment when Corbyn said that his resolve had been strengthened after reading a biography of Harold Wilson? That was a facepalm moment, if anything was, and at least as bad as anything attributed to Blair's religion (as it was essentially the same thing).

[Zeb]

For British socialism, does make a lot of sense to talk about values rather than trying to pin a label to it. Scott's comment there reminded of something, sure others will know it already.

Spoiler

[close]

(from John Keith's chats with him)

Personally, I see socialism as an alternative theory of how to organise society which, given the nature of capitalism, is utopian in present circumstances. Which takes my version of socialism into how to pragmatically shape, steer, and mitigate a global system which leads to such huge inequities. That has to be internationalist in outlook - which is where how we approach climate change (even if it weren't a threat to us) comes in as well as much more else - and work with society as we find it rather than how we'd wish it to be.

Not sure about 'socialist policies'. I think my view is more that if socialism is about social organisation, and if that it is utopian right now, then any single policy imposed from above, or even a raft of them, won't alter the realities of what we're working within. To give one example, if the state gives workers part-ownership of where they work but also places constraints upon them for 'the needs of the state', what has fundamentally changed? So I tend to think more about outcomes and am open to reaching them by whichever way is most equitable and of greatest benefit to the largest number.

[surfer. Fuck you generator.]

Nobody needing a food bank, or going broke paying for healthcare would be the base line.

That's it.

Too much empty talk around this issue. I don't care about your ideals, I don't care whether a billionaire or a trillionaire exists. If you tell me people are a community, then at base, every man / woman should be paid enough, through a pool of the collective, so that they can live healthily, securely through their choices. From there, it's up to the individual what they wish to use their time to build, whether it's more money or other pursuits.

You can get to the above even now if taxation worked as it's supposed to without needing to introduce any new methods (well, actually it's mainly soundbites about billionaires I hear these days rather than a clear plan). The issue of why that isn't happening fundamentally starts with, but is not limited to, a lack of consistency (over a time frame of decades) in how governments are run if you are already at the starting point of being a democracy. We can only talk about an issue with improving execution over the long term if you actually can build over the long term. That simply hasn't happened. A dramatic example is the likes of Trump getting voted in and going tax breaks for my homies PARTTYYYYYYYY but you don't even need these examples to see the issue.

If you don't have this, cannot create this, then it's every man / woman for himself / herself. As long as we're clear and don't waste someone's time with imprecise information.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It would work better by identifying the individual components as British values, and avoiding the socialism word entirely.

It is what Blair did and it worked for him. But, really, as has already been pointed our, no 'true' socialist experiment has worked so far - and UK citizens generally understand this. So, don't use the term for your proposed political agenda. Common sense really.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Am not so sure people in this country favour the Scandi socialist system. I think the big difference is people in Scandinavia are prepared to pay for to improve the standard of living for everyone, the socialists in this country expect companies and the rich to pay.
I doubt the average person understands what happened in Venezuela but many would probably give a very basic answer which is correct. Socialists who never had a clue on how to run a country. they rightly fear the same happening here.
I would avoid the word Socialist as well. Comrades another word people aren't impressed with.

It does sound antiquated and cultish now. Definitely a word to be avoided.

[So… Howard Philips]

It is what Blair did and it worked for him. But, really, as has already been pointed our, no 'true' socialist experiment has worked so far - and UK citizens generally understand this. So, don't use the term for your proposed political agenda. Common sense really.

And the number of countries which have included the term expression 'Socialist Republic of' have tended to be despotic and authoritarian.

Talk about giving a dog a bad name!

[Yorkykopite]

Capitalism is too deeply ingrained in this country for it to ever become truly socialist in an economic sense. The recent election depicts the appetite for a true left wing government, which proposed a manifesto which was Diet Coke when viewed through the lens of ‘true socialism’. It will not happen any time soon.

My realistic nirvana for socialism within the UK would be a system that provides opportunity, education, healthcare and general baseline welfare to all, no matter their class, colour or religious leaning. To have a moral, common sense approach to issues from foreign policy & sustainability to drug policy & immigration. To encourage an inclusive society at the forefront of worldwide democracy. 
 
Social inequality will always exist to some extent - but a government which attempts to bridge the gap for the least fortunate amongst us as much as it can, whilst maintaining an economy which rewards the gifted & talented would be sufficiently ‘socialist’ in my eyes.

What is 'true socialism' in your eyes?

I don't mean all the pleasant platitudes about "opportunity, education, healthcare and general baseline welfare to all, no matter their class, colour or religious leaning" which even most Tories could sign up for. I mean economics. What would a "true socialist" economy look like? How big would the state be, how large would the market be, would there be any large corporations etc? How would the banks work?

You called the recent Labour manifesto a "diet Coke" version of socialism, so I'm guessing you have some other economic model in mind. What is it?

[Gnurglan]

One thing needs to be remembered when people think about Scandinavian countries and taxes. Countries are quite large with small populations. If you want a common network of roads, power etc, it will be expensive for the individuals. Meaning high taxes are to be expected.

I recently watched an interesting video on the social contract. This is what was stated, in order of importance for a society (as it was built over here):
1. Night watch - Police, defence, justice system
2. Large projects - Rail, bigger roads, bridges, power plants
3. Public goods - Education, sidewalks, local roads, water, electricity and telecom networks,...
4. Transfers - Pensions, social and unemployment contributions
5. Public service - Healthcare for people, care for elderly,..

Public thinking is needed to fix 1-3. This is what everyone pays taxes for. People will pay taxes if it's well spent. It really can't be done well without a public mindset, or if we prefer the term socialism. So you start spending on 1 before 2 etc. In case you have to cut, you cut spendings on number 5 ahead of number 4 etc.

When we get to number 4, I think it becomes more political. How much of that is a society supposed to offer? There is a risk that 4 and 5 will eat up resources so the first three get under pressure. This is why I believe the role of the public/socialism is the first three. Go beyond that and it's likely that money will not be there. That means government will struggle to keep its part of the social contract and that can end badly.

[oldfordie]

One thing needs to be remembered when people think about Scandinavian countries and taxes. Countries are quite large with small populations. If you want a common network of roads, power etc, it will be expensive for the individuals. Meaning high taxes are to be expected.

I recently watched an interesting video on the social contract. This is what was stated, in order of importance for a society (as it was built over here):
1. Night watch - Police, defence, justice system
2. Large projects - Rail, bigger roads, bridges, power plants
3. Public goods - Education, sidewalks, local roads, water, electricity and telecom networks,...
4. Transfers - Pensions, social and unemployment contributions
5. Public service - Healthcare for people, care for elderly,..

Public thinking is needed to fix 1-3. This is what everyone pays taxes for. People will pay taxes if it's well spent. It really can't be done well without a public mindset, or if we prefer the term socialism. So you start spending on 1 before 2 etc. In case you have to cut, you cut spendings on number 5 ahead of number 4 etc.

When we get to number 4, I think it becomes more political. How much of that is a society supposed to offer? There is a risk that 4 and 5 will eat up resources so the first three get under pressure. This is why I believe the role of the public/socialism is the first three. Go beyond that and it's likely that money will not be there. That means government will struggle to keep its part of the social contract and that can end badly.

How will socialism solve our Health cares crisis, a lot of the problems can't be solved by the NHS.
Throwing money at the NHS in the hope it solves the problem is wrong. thats not to say the NHS doesn't need more funding. it does but money alone isn't enough.
The last Labour government recognised this and set up many support schemes to help people, it improved the health of the elderly. the tragedy is this actually saved the country money as it relieved the pressure off the NHS. all chopped by this Tory government, elderly get sick. they have nowhere to go except hospital at £12.5 grand a week. the NHS bill rockets.
A lot of the problems are not really about Socialism. it's about competency. 

I think the biggest job any government has is to create a trading environment for UK business to operate efficiently and competitively. do that and everything else follows, full employment with the majority paying taxes, prosperous companies paying taxes, all revenue to provide for a better standard of living. we have f... up though, leaving the EU stops us trading efficiently and competitively.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Thats without getting into the corruption at the top and the abuse of Socialist polices for personal gain by the people of the country.

seeing how labour has been run with corbyn and his mates kids getting cushy jobs in the party and Milne and murphys contracts not expiring on corbyns departure would indicate to me that with the resources of the state it’d be far worse

The last Labour government recognised this and set up many support schemes to help people, it improved the health of the elderly. the tragedy is this actually saved the country money as it relieved the pressure off the NHS. all chopped by this Tory government, elderly get sick. they have nowhere to go except hospital at £12.5 grand a week. the NHS bill rockets.
A lot of the problems are not really about Socialism. it's about competency. 

the last labour government did a great job at doing the little things that kept many out of trouble, something like 20k people needed food banks (not great but nowhere near today’s level)

[oldfordie]

seeing how labour has been run with corbyn and his mates kids getting cushy jobs in the party and Milne and murphys contracts not expiring on corbyns departure would indicate to me that with the resources of the state it’d be far worse

the last labour government did a great job at doing the little things that kept many out of trouble, something like 20k people needed food banks (not great but nowhere near today’s level)

Similar circumstances to what happened in Venezuela, cronies getting a job becuase of loyalty to the leadership rather than competency. you have to wonder what criteria would have been used when appointing people to run all these nationalised companies. selected for their skills or loyalty to the leadership. someone who wouldn't spill the beans when things went wrong.

Excellent point about foodbanks providing nutrition to stop people falling sick due to malnutrition. obvious now you mention but easy to overlook.

[Nobby Reserve]

Socialism is a bit of a generic or catch-all term, as there are many different forms of socialism - from milder, mixed-economy types, through to hardline versions of communism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

As such, the term means vastly different things to different people. In my experience, people who are left-of-centre tend to view socialism as the milder & more benign versions, whilst those right-of-centre consider it to mean the more extreme and often undesirable forms (and cite extreme examples to denigrate even milder forms)

My own preference would be something like 'liberal socialism' (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism). A mixed economy, with strong and wide-ranging public services under public ownership and control, funded by direct and progressive taxation.

As an aside, I consider the large-scale tax dodging by the very wealthy, largely using secretive offshore havens, to be one of the biggest problems facing this country today. I would like to see a massively tougher approach taken to tax enforcement and draconian punishments applied to those who cheat the system.

[west_london_red]

Am not so sure people in this country favour the Scandi socialist system. I think the big difference is people in Scandinavia are prepared to pay for to improve the standard of living for everyone, the socialists in this country expect companies and the rich to pay.

Assuming we are in agreement that the NHS needs more money, as do schools and the police without even going on to anything controversial let’s say like nationalisation or tuition fees, were only talking about the stuff that we can all agree needs more money, how does it get paid for then? If people don’t want to pay more taxes and we’re worried the wealthy and business will up sticks, whose going to pay?

[Gnurglan]

Assuming we are in agreement that the NHS needs more money, as do schools and the police without even going on to anything controversial let’s say like nationalisation or tuition fees, were only talking about the stuff that we can all agree needs more money, how does it get paid for then? If people don’t want to pay more taxes and we’re worried the wealthy and business will up sticks, whose going to pay?

Maybe the answer is nobody?
When you and I look at our disposable money, we can't buy all we want. We have to choose. So what do we do if money is really tight? We pay rent, we pay for food and electricity. Point being we make sure the basics are in place. Things we can't do without. If we were to pass on paying for the basics opting for a new car instead, we would soon have someone knock on the door demanding the rent or we would be out on the street. Long term, the same is true for a society. We have to ensure we pay for the basics. If you have money left you can buy something else.

Where I live the basics have been ignored and instead money has gone to charity. Now we refuse to stop giving to charity and struggle with the basic payments. If you go to seek money from your family with these conditions, they will only accept giving you some extra money for a while. Sooner or later they will tell you to stop giving money to charity before you can afford it. If you only spent on the basics, you'd perhaps get more sympathy.

[oldfordie]

Assuming we are in agreement that the NHS needs more money, as do schools and the police without even going on to anything controversial let’s say like nationalisation or tuition fees, were only talking about the stuff that we can all agree needs more money, how does it get paid for then? If people don’t want to pay more taxes and we’re worried the wealthy and business will up sticks, whose going to pay?

I remember having a conversation on paying taxes with a few friends years ago, talking about everybody only paying 10p in the pound tax, I argued I don't want to live in a society where we only pay 10p tax,  we pay tax for a reason. to pay for education etc ,all what you say, got some funny looks, sure they thought I was mad.who wants to pay taxes when you don't have too.
It's not about what we think, it's how the public will react. raise taxes to a rate that hurts and the public will vote you out. we have a different culture to Scandi countries, people in these countries are prepared to pay. we would be outraged.
I don't think anyone's worried about raising Corporation tax are they? still far lower than most countires. theres a video of Owen Smith being interviewed by Andrew Neil when he was in Corbyns shadow cabinet talking about how he would raise the money, very impressive. who comes out of a Andrew Neil interview looking good, very few, Smith did, sad loss for Labour.

[west_london_red]

I remember having a conversation on paying taxes with a few friends years ago, talking about everybody only paying 10p in the pound tax, I argued I don't want to live in a society where we only pay 10p tax,  we pay tax for a reason. to pay for education etc ,all what you say, got some funny looks, sure they thought I was mad.who wants to pay taxes when you don't have too.
It's not about what we think, it's how the public will react. raise taxes to a rate that hurts and the public will vote you out. we have a different culture to Scandi countries, people in these countries are prepared to pay. we would be outraged.
I don't think anyone's worried about raising Corporation tax are they? still far lower than most countires. theres a video of Owen Smith being interviewed by Andrew Neil when he was in Corbyns shadow cabinet talking about how he would raise the money, very impressive. who comes out of a Andrew Neil interview looking good, very few, Smith did, sad loss for Labour.

Personally my taxes are just about ok but I get that some people want lower taxes, some people don’t earn very much or (and this probably applies to me to a degree but it’s not a huge deal) I’m more likely to get a ‘pay rise’ from a tax cut then I am from an actual pay raise because I work in the public sector and haven’t had anything more then a 1% raise for the last 7 years and I won’t hold my breath on it being any different next year so I wouldn’t automatically condemn anyone who wants to pay less tax.

With regards to an increase in corporation tax, it was roundly condemned and questioned in here in the run up to the last election so I wouldn’t assume it’s universally accepted, and while I can understand why people are not keen on increasing corporation tax, the question still remains for those people to answer - someone has to pay for what 99% of us probably agree we need. And while we can all argue on what socialism means to us, or what it means in general I don’t think anyone’s definition of socialism or social democracy, social liberalism, left of centre or however we define ourselves we can probably all agree that a decently funded NHS, not waiting 3 weeks to see a GP, schools that are open 5 days a week and seeing a police officer every once in a while, and not knowing what a food bank is is where we would all rather be but it’s all gonna need to be paid for.

[west_london_red]

Maybe the answer is nobody?
When you and I look at our disposable money, we can't buy all we want. We have to choose. So what do we do if money is really tight? We pay rent, we pay for food and electricity. Point being we make sure the basics are in place. Things we can't do without. If we were to pass on paying for the basics opting for a new car instead, we would soon have someone knock on the door demanding the rent or we would be out on the street. Long term, the same is true for a society. We have to ensure we pay for the basics. If you have money left you can buy something else.

Where I live the basics have been ignored and instead money has gone to charity. Now we refuse to stop giving to charity and struggle with the basic payments. If you go to seek money from your family with these conditions, they will only accept giving you some extra money for a while. Sooner or later they will tell you to stop giving money to charity before you can afford it. If you only spent on the basics, you'd perhaps get more sympathy.

In all honesty, I don’t think that issue exists over here. 9 years of austerity in this country where almost every department has seen huge cuts in their budgets (while a few were protected which meant in reality either a freeze in spending or very small increases) means that there isn’t really anything left to cut out of what we could chose. There’s the good old foreign aid budget that people particularly on the right raise, but even that in the grand scheme of things isn’t huge and in the post Brexit world we’ll need that to buy us some friends.

[oldfordie]

Personally my taxes are just about ok but I get that some people want lower taxes, some people don’t earn very much or (and this probably applies to me to a degree but it’s not a huge deal) I’m more likely to get a ‘pay rise’ from a tax cut then I am from an actual pay raise because I work in the public sector and haven’t had anything more then a 1% raise for the last 7 years and I won’t hold my breath on it being any different next year so I wouldn’t automatically condemn anyone who wants to pay less tax.

With regards to an increase in corporation tax, it was roundly condemned and questioned in here in the run up to the last election so I wouldn’t assume it’s universally accepted, and while I can understand why people are not keen on increasing corporation tax, the question still remains for those people to answer - someone has to pay for what 99% of us probably agree we need. And while we can all argue on what socialism means to us, or what it means in general I don’t think anyone’s definition of socialism or social democracy, social liberalism, left of centre or however we define ourselves we can probably all agree that a decently funded NHS, not waiting 3 weeks to see a GP, schools that are open 5 days a week and seeing a police officer every once in a while, and not knowing what a food bank is is where we would all rather be but it’s all gonna need to be paid for.

You would think so wouldn't you but sadly not everyone agrees including the current Labour leader, it's done massive harm to the publics view of the Labour party.

[Gnurglan]

In all honesty, I don’t think that issue exists over here. 9 years of austerity in this country where almost every department has seen huge cuts in their budgets (while a few were protected which meant in reality either a freeze in spending or very small increases) means that there isn’t really anything left to cut out of what we could chose. There’s the good old foreign aid budget that people particularly on the right raise, but even that in the grand scheme of things isn’t huge and in the post Brexit world we’ll need that to buy us some friends.

Foreign aid is a thing for the right? Over here it's something for the left.

[Elmo!]

Foreign aid is a thing for the right? Over here it's something for the left.

Opposition to foreign aid is what they mean.

[west_london_red]

Opposition to foreign aid is what they mean.

Yeah, the hard right want to get rid is what I meant. Although, the commitment to 0.7% GDP was made by Cameron if I remember correctly.

[west_london_red]

You would think so wouldn't you but sadly not everyone agrees including the current Labour leader, it's done massive harm to the publics view of the Labour party.

Labour were in favour of all of that, the issue they then went off on weird tangents like free broadband, but that’s not the point. There’s no obvious way to pay for what we would all deem the basics of a civilised society, things most if not all of us can remember not being issues that long ago like getting a GP appointment in 2 days and people not relying on food banks.