Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

100% socialism, whatever that is, is not communism. Socialism is a transition to communism.

And actually that's not communism. Communism is ultimately about common ownership ('COMMUNism) and the overthrow of the state.

I don't think it is.

The difference between what is described as a socialist country and a capitalist country is only on the proportion of the mix between socialism and capitalism.

100% socialism is communism.

If you disagree, please tell me how that statement is incorrect.

Sorry but this is a really weak argument.

Capitalism existed when the first goods were exchanged for a token instead of directly for other goods, long before the word was ever coined.

Socialism also existed long before the word was invented.

My query was more about how taxation and capitalism rub up against one other. Is taxation inherently a socialist idea? As @SharonEllissays, the answer is arguably no since it has existed in fuedal times.

You didn't, so you agree that socialism is part capitalist part socialist.

Which is exactly my point that all capitalist societies are part socialist.

If the state owns 100% of the means of production then that's communism, not socialism.

Socialism in common parlance has always been about fairer sharing of resources. Just because someone didn't come up with the label until after that started doesn't make it not socialism.

Where did I say anything about 100%?

The overall system is still capitalist, very few countries are socialist.

If the state owns 100% of the means of production then that's communism, not socialism.

Socialism in common parlance has always been about fairer sharing of resources. Just because someone didn't come up with the label until after that started doesn't make it not socialism.

Agreed. So back to OP’s question about why socialism is viewed negatively - is it more accurate to ask why some aspects of socialism are viewed more negatively than others?

Could I suggest some basic research? As I said taxa tion was around for centuries before the concept of socialism was even being formulated? There is a basic timeline issue here. Socialism is about the means of production. Everyone pitching in to fund a communal good long predates it.

It is relevant if you’re claiming it’s not socialism. What else is it?

It is relevant if you’re claiming it’s not socialism. What else is it?

If you don't call taking money from people who have no children to fund state schools socialism, taking money from well people to fund A&E socialism, why not?

You might as well have written "mMost capitalists agree with some level of socialism".

I've seen it referred to as "caring capitalism".

I don't know and I don't think its relevant. We arent getting pure capitalism. Socialism wasnt invented out of thin air - it drew on various traditions of collective enterprise whether that's taxation, friendly societies etc. Those precursor of socialism are not socialism though. Humans through time have recognised benefits of banding together for the greater good.

Taxation is not socialism. States have been taxing their citizens for centuries. Most capitalists agree with some level of taxation.

Yes, but in its purest form, does the definition of capitalism allow for taxation?

I’m not sure what you’re expecting from a Labour government as they tend to come in after Conservative ones and have a great deal of policy to change to make a difference. This government picked up the disasters of Brexit, Ukraine, Trump, Truss and more. I’m unsure though, what’s so terrible about it. Crime rates are down, NHS waiting lists are quicker, where mistakes are made there is honesty enough to correct. And most of all, Starmer has done his utmost to stand up to that idiot Trump and not get us dragged into his madness - we will be damaged by Trump of course though. As with the USA’s subprime lending, I expect our economy issues will be blamed on Labour by the right wing media, again! I have lived under many Governments and have a lot of lived experience. We don’t know how lucky we are throughout all of them to be honest. But to read the headlines, or listen to GB News (which I do to avoid my own echo chamber) you’d think we lived in terrible conditions.
It’s the same with those pathetic nostalgia programmes, you’d think we spent the 70’s with no electricity, rioting and watching dead pile up in streets. And don’t get me started on channel 4 and channel 5’s efforts to get us believe the UK is populated by benefit scroungers. In short, labour hasn’t turned the country into utopia, in fact it’s pretty dull, but we’ve be cushioned against the worst effects of capitalism by some shrewd steering. You can have terrible socialism of course, and occasionally fairer capitalism but overall, capitalism fails to drip wealth down and we need a more structured way to bring about a modicum of dignity for us workers. I will say, I travel to Spain and Portugal a lot and cost of living, services and general mood is A LOT nicer - Brexit has messed UK up in many ways.

I think all states have some kind of socialism. Health care, state education, social security payments. Everything where tax is taken from individuals to finance things which society is deemed to need which the individual tax payer may not use is socialism.

I like Benthamism as a principle. Essentially it says that there should be a line at the economic bottom where people can live a reasonable life, and above that political decisions should be made on the basis of what will bring the greatest happiness (I would say good, not happiness) to the greatest number of people. For his time his ideas were revolutionary.

Taxation is not socialism. States have been taxing their citizens for centuries. Most capitalists agree with some level of taxation.

I think all states have some kind of socialism. Health care, state education, social security payments. Everything where tax is taken from individuals to finance things which society is deemed to need which the individual tax payer may not use is socialism.

I like Benthamism as a principle. Essentially it says that there should be a line at the economic bottom where people can live a reasonable life, and above that political decisions should be made on the basis of what will bring the greatest happiness (I would say good, not happiness) to the greatest number of people. For his time his ideas were revolutionary.