The rise of socialism

Bl4ckGryph0n

I think what we are seeing is not so much specifically the rise of socialism but the slow death of neoliberalism.

But all key global institutions still preach the same neoliberal mantra, from the IMF to the WTO, EU, central banks etc.

It's as if the 2008 crash never happened. It seems these institutions have learned few lessons but voters know what has happened to their wallets and communities. Hence the appeal of politicians presenting alternatives.

Clearly we need alternatives if we are to avoid repeating past mistakes and sleepwalking into another massive financial crash.

r1ecn

Or we can take some personal responsibilities and avoid it ourselves. No need for some socialism wealth transfer exercise. Just because someone makes a loan available, that doesn't mean you have to take it.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Clearly policymakers eased credit conditions because they wanted firms and consumers to take up more credit following the 2008 credit crunch.

My point is that if the problem was a credit fuelled bubble, the prescribed solution was another credit fuelled bubble, with predictable consequences.

What you are suggesting would be a radical re-thinking of the existing consensus which is clearly not on the agenda of any key institutions.

Goooner

Not at all, there is no mention of institutions in my response at all. It is purely from a consumer perspective. Just because the loan available that doesn't mean I have to take. Just because someone is willing to offer 7x my annual income, that doesn't mean that I don't have to stop and think whether it is sensible to take one out. What was happening is that not even a generally acceptable 3x repayment was available anymore. What was happening was that the criteria went too far the other way....There is nothing wrong with less prescribed criteria, however they are never an excuse for not taking personal responsibility.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Nothing is our responsibility these days. Everything is always someone else's fault

r1ecn

Indeed - It is an absolutely ridiculous situation.

Bl4ckGryph0n

My original point was precisely about policy and institutions and how those are designed to elicit a certain response from consumers *in aggregate*.

mij

Yes I got that, doesn't mean we have to respond to it though...Also doesn't mean you require socialism to avoid that....it is a free world, just got to use that grey matter a little...

la gran siete

We are a plutocracy which dabbles with socialism when it suits. although recent examples of socialism have mainly benefited the rich.  

Isn’t the state bailing out the financial system, topping up low paid workers take home pay with tax credits, providing housing benefit for private landlords etc..socialism?  

Are privatised companies with nationalised debt such as pensions examples of socialism?

Around a quarter of government revenue is from income tax, so a large chunk of the rest of it is coming from indirect taxes which we all pay, making a small increase in income tax for the rich seems trivial in comparison.

Maybe it is time for some socialism for the rest of our society

r1ecn

Socialism is often used as pejorative mainly by rightwing people to decry a system that involves the state in providing any kind of service that is essential to the general public or attempts to narrow the wealth gap that capitalism inevitably creates. The fact though is that we don't have true socialism which states that the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned by the people.Even in the Soviet Union, the people owned nothing other than their basic possessions, state .everything was controlled, provided and managed state.What we and to varying degrees most of EU nations have, are mixed economies and it really comes down to the level of state involvement which varies between on nation and another ie social democracy or social market.

Rightists use Venezuela as an example as to why we should never embrace any form of left-leaning governance.This is simply wrong .There are, though, much better examples and if one chooses Latin America as a starting point,  then I would suggest Uruguay.Here is a nation which for decades was under the cosh of successive military regimes repressing the masses and keeping them impoverished for the benefit of multinational corporations.Since it became a democracy it has been led by a succession of left-leaning political parties who embrace the social democratic model seen in several European nations.It now has a generous welfare system, public health service and good education.Whilst it is still a relatively poor country it has one of the highest GDPs and a much better wealth distribution than any of its Latin American neighbours. Crime is lower and the level of contentment is much higher.Uruguay has a very large middle-class population where there few rich or poor people and I would suggest that is the way any civilised nation should aim.I should also add that its has very liberal social policies being the first country in that region to legalise marihuana.

Corbyn very much reminds me of Jose Mujica a quite extraordinary man who was locked up in Uruguay for years for being an urban guerilla.Upon his release, he joined a democratically elected left-wing government and subsequently became President.Not only was he successful but because of his humility and generosity, maintained the affections and respect of his people.I like to think of Corbyn in those terms.Obviously never a guerilla himself but always willing to talk to his adversaries to find some kind of agreement

Does nationalisation work? Yes provided the system is run properly and has as its main aim the provision of a high-quality service.

Taxes have to be set at the correct level both for the sake of the economy, fund crucial services and maintain a narrower wealth gap

It is social justice to question those who exploit for personal gain the labour of others.It is social justice to question those who provided dodgy goods and services and those who wreck the environment, again for personal gain