The rise of socialism

Toko Black

No - I cant think of any area where Nationalisation would be an improvement. I can think of some (Health) where less Nationalisation would be an improvement.

Well it would depend what taxes. Increased personal and corporation taxes just encourage people and companies to move offshore or change their behaovour. Increased consumption taxes work in that hey creat more revenue, but they also depress activity.

No - everyone should pay a fair wack irrespective.

B210Bandit

I agree for some structures it makes sense. But I disagree on where the dividing line is.

I think it is dependent on what you pay for directly* and where there is a semblance of choice. We don't pay directly for the NHS, policing, defence, etc. So I've no problem with them being largely government run monopolies.

Energy production, rail, air travel, telecoms, steel, postal services (especially that one!) are no better run by the government than the market. There is still regulation by the government, but to my mind an organisation that relies on winning customers is going to be more efficient than a government monopoly that has no incentive to win over customers on price and service.

I have some qualms about water and energy distribution because of the inability to have a proper market with choice, but believe the current arrangements with private companies has served us well and there is no compelling reason to change other than dogma/ideology.

* The exception being council tax.

I think you've just reflected my question back without really answering it.

But as a general point I agree that tax changes whether up or down could have positive as well as negative impacts.

I guess it was a loaded question.

But one thing to note... The number of billionaires with yachts is pretty tiny really.
But this tiny minority is used as a basis to demonise people on far from excessive incomes.

I was in the 5% that Corbyn would have raised taxes on. I live in a reasonable 4 bed house but drive a pretty modest Kia Ceed, save money taking packed lunches to work, etc. I already get no benefits whatsoever, and my kids will be penalised for my income by getting less support if they go to university. It's a valid question for me - why bother working hard to see decreasing returns?

I could get a higher quality of life selling up, buying a house outright back in my home town and getting a job in B&Q. It means less tax for the government of course, but at least it's one less 'evil' rich person getting ahead by treating others as if they were worth less than the office printer...

Toko Black

Well France tried socialism with Presedent Hollande. But it was short lived.. It wasn't seen as a success and the voters chose Macron.
If Corbyn was to be PM, I don't believe he could carry out his pipe dream. Wide scale nationalisation is expensive (to buy back) and there will be so many obstacles. Management teams that run nationalised industries were mediocre in the past. When an industry fails there is always the safety net- a government bail out.
I do think we have seen a rise for socialism,usually from the less well off who think their lives will be improved by hammering the rich. (I used that term purposely as the rhetoric from socialist these days is often see as a class war).
At the other end of the scale, the very rich, celebs, BBC and those that can afford to be socialists are pushing the agenda.

Blitzkrieg

I haven't sat down and written out a manifesto on public/private ownership, so I can't specify exact lines of deliniation, it's more of an off the cuff attempt to provide something of a rough idea of where my position tends to be.

I agree when it comes to certain things we pay directly for/where there is abundant competition, there is certainly scope for free markets, but it's a grey area and rather complex to tie down.
Probably requires a 15 page flow chart that I don't want to have to try and make and you certainly don't want to have to look at

The issues I have are particularly to do with things like:
- bus/train services for example, where for many users there simply isn't enough competition or commercial desire to provide services for smaller communities that still need to rely on public transport.
Unless we force all the old age pensioners, disabled and non drivers to live in high density urban areas with higher commercial demand for transport, services just get cut either completely or to the bare bones.
I personally am lucky that I live in a well serviced public transport area with buses and trams close by, however I am aware of villages and small towns near where I grew up that are having real difficulties.
- Incentives to be productive/meet commercial targets are not always compatible with and sometimes directly or indirectly impact on the core purpose of a service.
The example of car parking tickets is one, where it has become a revenue generator and the incentives are to pump out tickets rather than one of safety and efficiency of transport infrastructure.
Services that are based around providing wellbeing to individuals and the community in terms of safety, health etc are always going to be difficult to combine with a capitalist model.

To me, the UK and most other Western democracies are Social Democracies - the fact that we do have an NHS etc that most of the population want indicates that. I believe there is a disconnect between what socialism, social democracy, communism, capitalism and free markets are and mean to different people. A larger part of the anti-socialism commentary and ideas have originated in the US where by their standards the UK is a socialist country.

Me, I am a practical centrist, I prefer not to view everything through an idealogical lense of free markets or socialism. I prefer to try and take the benefits of each where suitable and avoid their negatives unless those negatives are less significant than the advantages overall for human beings, rather than economies or individuals.

Blitzkrieg

Turns out that many people are opposed to the selling off of essential assets to corporate, and especially foreign, control. What a craven nation that permits near neighbours to control its railways, energy systems and other essential assets. It must be an Anglo Saxon disease, this desire to hock off the family silver built up over generations, when a small interest group declares that a profit is not being made. All this talk of Brexit and sovereignty is deliciously ironic in a nation with the most concentrated power in the Western world and dominated by foreign capital.

Blitzkrieg

We are a socialist democracy ..... we have free markets and national services, like most European countries.
It's merely the balance of how much is one or the other that changes.
Socialism is a very broad spectrum and doesn't need to have everything run as public/state owned - merely some aspects.

I suppose we could relabel ourselves as a social capitalist democracy if you like

domtheone

That's generally what successful people do.


As for the rest you wrote after about the college experiment. The truely successful people who sit about doing nothing allowing others to do the work usually don't have a degree. They usually employ lots who do though

Goooner

Lol. Generally successful people sit in their arse all day?

You really believe that? It isn't down to hard work, talent and taking risks?

So the top 5% that Jeremy wants to penalise only have their income from exploiting others?

Blitzkrieg

Top 5% successful? Depends on your standards I guess. I'm talking about the top 0.0001%

Goooner

Ah. So hardly anybody then. Probably a much lower number than those that game the benefits system.

Corbyn wanted to tax the top 5% more. Which includes me admittedly so I have a vested interest.

Why should I continue to have 13 hour long days out of the house (including commuting time) 5 days a week if there is a decreasing return for my effort? I'm just an employee with every penny on PAYE.

Isn't hard work and aspiration to be encouraged?