Socialism was born out of an age of elitism, hereditary fortunes and strict social divides, and for this I cannot begrudge its early advocate’s grievances and their genuine intentions to attain the parameters in which everyone is afforded the prospects of success. As Isaiah Berlin asked; “What is freedom to those who cannot use it?” and this was a very apt question before the establishment of our welfare state in which now health care, social security and benefits, education and pensions are available to all and free at the point of contact.

However today, in the 21^st century, I find it almost spiteful that many socialists would have everyone live in equal poverty than allow those who are willing to make themselves the opportunity to do so. In my opinion socialism is unsustainable. For all its faults and susceptibility to human error and immorality, capitalism is not the enemy the socialist scaremongers and closet anarchists would have us all believe – the Robin Hood utopia they would have us think is a rational alternative is in fact a fallacy. To tax the prosperous sectors of our economy into oblivion would simply be counter-productive, even in a socialistic outcome; in other words, the socialist’s idea of distributing wealth is paradoxical, by their methods there would be no real wealth left to distribute.

However, I do not deny that the distribution of wealth is necessary. Otherwise, my argument in favour of the wealth generated by capitalism would be contradictory and redundant; the governmental encouragement of productivity must originate, to a certain degree, from the aspirations of a common good. Therefore I do believe that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate along with corporation tax etc; it is simply logical if we are to sustain our society and allow for the social minimums that pragmatic liberalism prescribes. The recent cases of major companies being found in debt of millions of pounds in tax I have found disgusting and instances such as this will only aggravate the idea of the City oligarchy and tarnish all of the right of the political spectrum with the same brush; that of the elitist and profiteering despot – more akin to the traditional villain in a Dickens’s fable than 21^st century reality.

So how does this transfer to domestic politics in Britain? Currently it is very simple. Increases in public spending, economically founded or not, are vote winners in the short term whereas fiscal stability and selective austerity is not. Look to some contemporary examples; as New Labour showed us, throwing big figures at an ignorant or unaware electorate is an excellent tactic to sustain a government, but not an economy. Equally, Thatcher’s monetarist agenda, the resulting economic Darwinism and the transition from the predominantly secondary to tertiary industry in this country was a phase thoroughly necessary yet similarly resented – and for many, still is today. Taking a neutral stance would prompt me to suggest broad, if not very simplified, solutions to the major parties in Britain. Namely, the Labour party must become more economically responsible and the Conservatives must become more socially adept. Perhaps this may detract from what the parties stand for and is likely to result in a more cemented two party system, but these are separate issues; as in both outcomes a more libertarian and less socialistic society will be accommodated for.

Is this best for Britain? Culturally it is, in my opinion, as socialism is becoming an increasingly detrimental ideology. If we continue to improve the social minimum in this country it will simply result in a further diminishing of aspirations and a greater feeling of entitlement in many areas of this country. Of course there are a plethora of factors that my simplified and compressed argument is neglecting and indeed in a perfect world I would opt for prosperity for all. However, this unfortunately cannot be achieved when the society we are cultivating is breeding generations of state dependants and the threat of a hole we cannot dig ourselves out of. It is difficult not to generalise of course and indeed there is still the issue of elitism and glass roofs in this country, but they are not as Victorian as we are made to believe.

As is the nature of socialism in the UK, the benefits are short term and popular in the immediate but they are myopic. The issues it produces further down the line are never linked and the resulting policies of austerity and decreases in welfare are faced with vigorous opposition rather than widespread acknowledgment of the need of decreased state dependence. Many would have a further increase in uniform tax of the ‘rich’ to solve all our current economic ailments, yet this would merely be another expediential solution resulting in future subsequent issues and we simply cannot adopt this tactic forever. Long term stability must be implemented and ultimately if socialistic policy increased in this country we would be in an even more volatile fiscal situation. Our freedom would be restricted and our lives dictated by the wants of others in this nation – which I find rather ironic as socialism, in the latter half of this century, has also managed to turn ‘patriotism’ into something of a dirty word…