90% of the British public should back my plans for a socialist revolution

" Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with oppressed, unhappy, impoverished people living in bleak grey cities" In other words, the "mistake" of associating socialism with everything it's ever created. "- but that is to confuse socialism with communism. " And the communists would say the opposite. And both cooperate to make sure that they can't be distinguished from one another, because whenever one comes up with a definition for socialism, a socialist says "No, that's communism," and a communist returns the favor when you define communism, the only exception being when the definitions are self-contradictory. " Plenty of prosperous European countries have socialists in government." Of the most inconsistent variety, and NOTHING like you're advocating. And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "As a result of the government's economic policies this country has the most equal distribution of income of any country in the world, and as a result of this, Denmark is also the happiest country in the world. " Happiness is impossible to study externally, any attempts at it can only come about through false reporting or biased proxies. So, utter nonsense there. Furthermore, as one of your sources mentioned, "A long term issue is the drop in the ratio of workers to retirees." This is shorthand for incoming systemic collapse, which is a DIRECT RESULT of redistributive policies-- there are more incentives to retire, less to work, so less people work. And your plan, unlike Denmark's, removes ALL incentives. " The "champagne effect" that capitalists use to describe the notion that some of the fortunes of the richest in society will eventually trickle down to the masses doesn't hold water" Bill Gates created Microsoft, Jobs created Apple. As a result, the masses now have quality operating systems, whereas before they had crap for operating systems. The problem with the statement is the "Eventually" part. The flood down, not a trickle, happens WHILE THE FORTUNE IS BEING MADE. It is only when the rich STOP working, because they no longer have incentives to, that the trickling down stops :). "as the gap between rich and poor in countries with capitalist governments is ever growing. " There is no country in the world with a capitalist government. Perhaps you ought to try one if you're planning on a revolution, especially since a lot of that gap, though not all of it, comes from anti-capitalist devices such as state-sponsored banks which use the mechanism of inflation to directly redistribute from poor to rich :). Also, this is ignoratio elenchi. The statement that the gap grows does not contradict the statement that those on the bottom grow with it in a free market-- which, as operating system markets demonstrate, they do. Income inequality was historically at it's lowest in various tribes in the primitive world. It was only as such inequality ROSE that standards of living rose in the long run. " It is no use tinkering at the edges of British society in order to crate a fairer society – the archaic political and social structures that favour the Establishment are too entrenched. What is required is root and branch reform." I just gave you an option for complete reform-- capitalism, which has never been tried. The establishment in Britain got that way as a leftover from the aristocracy... a STATE mechanism :). And yes, btw, your "Socialist" revolution has more in common with the "Communist" countries than the "Socialists" presently in Europe. So playing word tricks won't help ya here :) "Workers create all the wealth under capitalism." Only if you include the work of planning production, done by the owners. Otherwise, this is COMPLETELY nonsensical. The standard of living, the productivity, of a modern steel worker is much higher than that of a medieval blacksmith. The difference is the factory setting. The ideas and the risk of the entrepreneur create that difference. Which, by the way, is, unlike in a market system, impossible to rationally calculate to create under consistent socialism, since there is no means (price mechanism) of calculating it. "Now that those pillars of capitalism - the financial institutions - have been exposed to be corrupt, fraudulent and incompetent," No one intellectually honest can declare the STATE SUBSIDIZED financial institutions of the modern world to be "pillars of capitalism." A pillar of capitalism would be one that sought to FREE itself from the state, not to beg for scraps from it. The closest thing is perhaps BB&T bank, but even that accepted bailout money in order to not be forced out of business by the subsidies granted to its competitors, so that's at best only an aspiring pillar of capitalism, while remaining an actual part of the state-controlled (socialist) system :) "A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need." And here you reveal the deepest weakness of your system. ACCORDING TO NEED. And, implicitly, from each according to ability. That old slogan eh? Guess what-- When you take something out of someone's hide according to ability, and hand it out according to need, what you have is a system that punishes ability and rewards need. What happens in such a system? People, consciously or otherwise, often the former, become progressively less able and more needy, because they have incentive to do so, and because you kill off all the able ones on the sacrificial pyre of need. When you run out of the "Able," you have to go with a new "able," that's less able, and so on and so forth, until at last there is only need-- only the neediest-- only those on the edge of death. And, since no one is around to take care of them, they die. Death is the purpose, standard, and ultimate result of the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need."