67% of young Britons want a socialist system

Original post by DSilva

1. No, but as I've gotten older earnt more and paid more tax, my views haven't changed. I am very happy to pay tax to fund our public services. Most people seem to want the benefits of high taxation (excellent public services) without having to pay tax.

2. That's just playing no true scotsman. It's a bit like those who go "ah but Russia wasn't real communism". Our current capitalist system is flawed and that's why young people are looking for an alternative. Over the past 18 months most people have faced an enormous struggle, especially the young, while the richest 1% have seen their wealth soar.

3. It's not that we're struggling. We're not even trying. We could easily build more houses if the political will was there - it isn't.

So I'll ask again, when it's so difficult for young people to accumulate capital under the current system, why would they be capitalist? The right don't even seem to make the case FOR capitalism anymore, they just go on about socialism being bad.

Do you argue a lot about politics with your dad?

1- fair enough but I know many people who feel differently. The problem is I think the wealthy and the middle class and the super rich are allowed to get away Scott free

2- well to some extent we have never had real communism, although early ussr came pretty close and should be enough to scare people off.

As I said I agree that the status quo is bad - where I disagree is that I don't think "socialism" of the kind you're advocating at least is a meaningful/ better alternative.

3- I see you've completely ignored my points on immigration and Japan :tongue:

As for "defending capitalism" I don't need to, are you proposing scrapping private property or doing anything remotely radical from the status quo? If you are good luck in our liberal democracy.

I used to talk politics with my dad but not anymore because he gets upset. He's admitted that he only really had his views because of his social circle and it's in fashion and that I'm probably right. Family is more important than politics though and we otherwise have a good relationship.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 42

Original post by Starship Trooper

I mean it's s cliche to say it but this is just common sense at the end of the day.@DSilva

Housing
https://www.insider.com/japan-ghost-towns-population-vacancy-rates-akiya-banks-2021-6

Wealth inequality
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/japan-explained-in-data-charts/

And Immigration...

Imagine my shock! :rolleyes:

(And no they don't have a socialist or left wing government...)

Japan is probably the worst example you could give. The burden placed on the youngest generation is absolutely insane and people are worked to death, it's hardly a society we should aspire to.

Reply 43

DSilva

12

Original post by Starship Trooper

1- fair enough but I know many people who feel differently. The problem is I think the wealthy and the middle class and the super rich are allowed to get away Scott free

2- well to some extent we have never had real communism, although early ussr came pretty close and should be enough to scare people off.

As I said I agree that the status quo is bad - where I disagree is that I don't think "socialism" of the kind you're advocating at least is a meaningful/ better alternative.

3- I see you've completely ignored my points on immigration and Japan :tongue:

As for "defending capitalism" I don't need to, are you proposing scrapping private property or doing anything remotely radical from the status quo? If you are good luck in our liberal democracy.

I used to talk politics with my dad but not anymore because he gets upset. He's admitted that he only really had his views because of his social circle and it's in fashion and that I'm probably right. Family is more important than politics though and we otherwise have a good relationship.

When most young people say they support socialism, what they mostly mean (Imo) is the scanadanavian model, of higher taxes, higher wages, better public services etc.

The woke nonsense debates are a distraction. Young people are suffering because they can't afford to buy a house and are saddled with debt, not because a university took down a picture from its common room. But when young people raise concerns with the current economic system they are told to shut up, or to stop being naive.

If you look at some of the policies our Tory government are introducing, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Corbyn didn't at least partially shift the dial.

The right should be comforted by the fact that there's no party which represents young people and those to the left. I've voted Labour every election, I really don't know if I will next time. Starmer is every bit as vacuous and dishonest as Johnson, to the point where I'm not even sure I could see him as the lesser of two evils.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 44

imlikeahermit

Original post by SHallowvale

Japan is probably the worst example you could give. The burden placed on the youngest generation is absolutely insane and people are worked to death, it's hardly a society we should aspire to.

Unsurprisingly I disagree. While it does have its issues, it’s by far a safer and more disciplined place to live in than this country.

Reply 45

Original post by SHallowvale

Japan is probably the worst example you could give. The burden placed on the youngest generation is absolutely insane and people are worked to death, it's hardly a society we should aspire to.

Out of interest, what would be the best example to give?

Japan has problems sure- but housing and wealth inequality- which were the examples DSilva gave are not one of them.

Reply 46

Original post by DSilva

When most young people say they support socialism, what they mostly mean (Imo) is the scanadanavian model, of higher taxes, higher wages, better public services etc.

The woke nonsense debates are a distraction.

Young people are suffering because they can't afford to buy a house and are saddled with debt, not because a university took down a picture from its common room. But when young people raise concerns with the current economic system they are told to shut up, or to stop being naive.

If you look at some of the policies our Tory government are introducing, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Corbyn didn't at least partially shift the dial.

The right should be comforted by the fact that there's no party which represents young people and those to the left. I've voted Labour every election, I really don't know if I will next time. Starmer is every bit as vacuous and dishonest as Johnson, to the point where I'm not even sure I could see him as the lesser of two evils.

Sweden used to be talked about all the time by lefties - and for good reason, they had created a social democratic semi utopia over there. But they don't talk about it now because of all the Rapes, crime and terrorism because of [censored ]

As I said to Burton bridge- you may think the some stuff is nonsense but a sizeable chunk of the membership including the bulk of the leadership don't - in fact they not only don't think it's nonsense bit it's the most important part of what they believe in.

Sure I agree to an extent.

Mmm possibly. Boris has always been a wet though.

Well the green party tends to be the collector of those votes and you have plaid and Snp too.

Reply 47

PowerSlide

3

Socialist systems tend to: discourage the best from working as hard as they can.

Its honestly pathetic how the laziest generation are the ones to complain about society without ever working a full hard day of work in their lifes.

Do they not realise that if we move to a system that encourages laziness, the system will start to slowly degrade for the worse not the better?

Reply 48

Vertigo_descent

21

Original post by imlikeahermit

Unsurprisingly I disagree. While it does have its issues, it’s by far a safer and more disciplined place to live in than this country.

At least it's not stupidly treating immigration as a cure-all. They are banking on automation for that. It should probably be looking at that plus policies like countries such as Hungary and Poland are introducing. A big problem with Japan is its workaholic culture. It's not very conducive to family building.

The west is the very last place I'd look to for "leadership" on what to do on just about anything.

Reply 49

Original post by Starship Trooper

Out of interest, what would be the best example to give?

Japan has problems sure- but housing and wealth inequality- which were the examples DSilva gave are not one of them.

Good question, I'm honestly not sure.

The evidence you gave that Japan doesn't have a housing issue is very poor. While there is certainly no shortage of homes, a great majority of these exist in rural "ghost towns" (as your source described it) where there is no work and, well, nothing to do. This clearly isn't viable for younger people. It would be like saying the UK doesn't have a housing crisis because you can buy homes for less than £50k in the far north of Scotland.

On wealth inequality, your source only compared Japan to the United States. If you compare Japan to the UK, they have very similar levels of wealth inequality for the top 1%. If you look at the top 10%, inequality is even worse in Japan.

Reply 50

Disagree entirely. Taxation, at least in some form, can provide people with opportunities that they would otherwise not have (e.g. in education, health, public infrastructure, etc). You can effectively grant better societal freedoms through taxation. Removing taxation may give more money to the people who don't need these services, but you limit the freedom of those who do. I'd say that the effect of taxation on freedom is a net positive.

Reply 51

kolme

Im in the lower bottom of that age group and most people around me don't even know what socialism is, they just know what our english teacher told us - Priestley was a socialist and his book is good so socialism is good.

Reply 52

Based on how you've defined "freedom", why is more freedom something we should aspire to? If granting more freedom reduces the amount of things people can actually do with their life then what benefit is freedom really giving people? Sure, you can reduce tax to 0% and no longer become a 'slave' to the government, but if this means you no longer have access to healthcare, education, public roads, infrastructure, etc, then what exactly is the point? For the vast majority of people, the amount of money they would save from a 0% tax rate would be nowhere near enough to provide for these things privately.

There is a reason why most (all?) developed countries have some level of taxation and fund public services in at least some form. Economically, and morally, it makes sense to have taxation.

Reply 53

People already have the incentive to become wealthier, it's the reason why people spend years training to become doctors, accountants and engineers, the reason why people start their own businesses, the reason why people persue promotions within their company, etc. The incentive already exists. Cutting taxation and defunding the services that most people depend upon will only put them into debt as they will struggle to afford these services privately. Arguably, cutting some public services would actually make it harder for people to become wealthier. I can't see how any of this is worth potentially making some people feel more motivated?

We can debate where tax should be spent or what services are a waste of tax money, but that's separate to your original idea that 'less tax = more freedom'. This idea is simply incorrect, unless you wish to define "freedom" as you've done and don't consider what people can actually do with their lives.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 54

For people interested in the differing accounts of human freedom (positive and negative liberty) then they might like to see here*

My take on "freedom" is that it's ultimately a means to an end and this can be for good or evil purposes. When evil reigns good people want to be free, and vice versa.

For instance we can see this when the radicals were truly in opposition against a conservative status quo they demanded freedom to think and say whatever you want. Fast forward fifty years and now these "radicals" are the status quo and we see them clamping down on "hate speech" etc.

So I would say if you have an evil government which I would describe Biden's America as, then it is moral and right to support negative freedom, as In the government should have as little power as possible and you should do everything legally in your power to do that inc tax avoidance and civil disobedience.

And to some extent, the reverse is also true. So I'm supportive if giving a good government more power/ money to stop immigration, go after corporations and help native families etc. Now I am more inclined to be more capitalist (less tax, less government) but we need to understand that unless the government is working for us it is never going to leave us alone and that that may not always be desirable.

@DSilva
@SHallowvale

*https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Reply 55

Not really, otherwise we wouldn't see people dedicating years of their life to training in hopes of earning a high paying job. I'd recommend anyone not work 80+ hours a week regardless of what the government is taxing you. That's a ludicrous amount of time to be working. Out of curiosity, what sort of salary were you getting?

I understand how lowering tax would raise freedom given your definition of freedom. What I disagree with is the definition you've chosen. I view freedom as the ability for people to do what they want, go wherever they want to go, etc. We live in a money driven economy so the opportunities people have are dependent on how much money they have. In that sense, people only have freedom if they have enough money for it. Taxation can help increase people's freedom if it is used to provide people with opportunities that they would otherwise have not been able to afford.

On the master-slave relationship analogy, I'm not sure why you've asked this. You yourself agree that there should be taxation in some form and that there shouldn't be a 0% tax rate. In other words, you seem to accept the master-slave relationship also. What we seem to disagree on is what extent people should be taxed and where tax should be spent.

Reply 56

Rakas21

21

Out of interest do you consider any non-city states to be right wing?

You appear to view taxation as the defining point in right wing Vs not however even the US is not radically low tax once state level taxes are added.

It is worth saying that in the 2017-2018 financial year state spending was at the lowest level since 1948 as a percentage of GDP.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 57

Vertigo_descent

21

Original post by Starship Trooper

For people interested in the differing accounts of human freedom (positive and negative liberty) then they might like to see here*

My take on "freedom" is that it's ultimately a means to an end and this can be for good or evil purposes. When evil reigns good people want to be free, and vice versa.

For instance we can see this when the radicals were truly in opposition against a conservative status quo they demanded freedom to think and say whatever you want. Fast forward fifty years and now these "radicals" are the status quo and we see them clamping down on "hate speech" etc.

So I would say if you have an evil government which I would describe Biden's America as, then it is moral and right to support negative freedom, as In the government should have as little power as possible and you should do everything legally in your power to do that inc tax avoidance and civil disobedience.

And to some extent, the reverse is also true. So I'm supportive if giving a good government more power/ money to stop immigration, go after corporations and help native families etc. Now I am more inclined to be more capitalist (less tax, less government) but we need to understand that unless the government is working for us it is never going to leave us alone and that that may not always be desirable.

@DSilva
@SHallowvale
@Gaddafi

*https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

In the sense of remediating an imbalance, I'd agree - in terms of an ideal to aspire to? The smaller, the better, but I think border control is a function it should always perform as part of defence. As for corporations, they are largely a creation of state power to cloak a lot of the activities the government itself would otherwise perform but either cannot legally, or doesn't want to be seen to be doing, e.g. censorship or money supply expansion through the credit system.

This is most openly the case in China, where the CCP has a controlling interest in large corporates by default; in the West, it is more surreptitious and control is effected mostly through soft power but also through controlling and influencing financial firms that in turn have stakes in a large variety of corporations. One thing that needs to be understood is that closely connected firms largely enjoy this power because they are serving a function various elites embedded within the government want them to perform - in essence, it is dismantling a form of power the government has grafted onto itself. It's a big error to treat corporations as they currently exist as synonymous with laissez-faire capitalism.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 58