Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

You do know you can read papers online don't you. Where do you get your news from, social media?

Well obviously. But Im not sure many people get their news from printed newspapers owned by these millionaires of which you speak. Given the readership figures. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree a bit there.

Yeah some of us still can read you know.

The very rich can be protected by a very powerful socialist state anyway.

Oligarchs with connections have ownership and you can see even higher inequality emerge due to that.

As pp said destroying the middle classes can end up with poor, controlled population and a small powerful elite / state who will never want to give up that power.

Socialism that is, not the Nordic model which has very different outcomes.

Think I meant to quote your other pp

Do you read a printed newspaper??! Wow.

I'm 30 year old.

People who "own the media". Showing your age there. People don't get their news from the red tops any more!

No. Its becuase it " puts the fear of fucking god" into most people who work and pay taxes. It doesnt actually worry the elite or the very high earners in society ironically looking at the polls as they are the ones supporting Labour.

Because it would be bad for the kind of people who own the media and for their friends business contacts and investors. Look at it this way, we know the food industry is killing people with the cheap processed crap it pumps out. In the past year or so the government met with charities pushing for better regulations around food and who want to promote wholefoods and highlight the problems with ultra processed food 40 times. In that same period it met with the big multi national corporations who make said ultra processed food 1400 times. When the corps asked the government to remove recommendations to severely limit the consumption of UPF's in its new guidance the government simply did so.

Money talks, none of this exists to help you or to be fair, it exists to do the minimum to keep people quiet and pointing the finger at each other while those with real power get richer and richer.

But the BBC is run by socialists?

You are trying to argue a counterfactual.

Obviously no one sane listens to Ed Miliband. And I'm not saying that Obama did. But unfortunately MPs did at the time of the vote. So the US did not have UK support to prevent Assad from crossing the red line re chemical attacks on his own people.
As I said, the US learned from this.

Because the media is largely owned by very rich people who assume that socialism will mean they are reduced to poverty, rather than that they might have to pay a bit more tax? And on social media many ordinary people have been successfully convinced that when they are rich (which the falsely believe is more statistically likely to happen than them becoming homeless) they will be taxed too much under socialism. So they fight against it too.

depends on your definition of ok.

From world power point of view? yes, certainly. The same as USSR did.

Would I want to live there? not in a million years. I wouldn't even want to visit.

depends on your definition of ok.

From world power point of view? yes, certainly. The same as USSR did.

Would I want to live there? not in a million years. I wouldn't even want to visit.

Probably the same as Diane Abbott and Shami Chakrabarti who I am sure absolutely loathed themselves for sending their kids to private school while lambasting everyone else for doing so.

@MyFAFOera
The biggest issue we have in the UK is that a simply vast amount of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few.
Ordinary people don't realise how wealthy the nobility continue quietly to be, with huge swathes of land in the UK held by just a few.

What is the maximum amount of land one family should be allowed to own?
If, say, anyone with more than 1000 acres had the surplus confiscated by the state, would it be sold or would it be state owned?
If state owned, would agricultural land be let to tenants or farmed by the government?

We need capitalism with sensible regulation, sensible taxes and controlled immigration to stop wages stagnating.

I listened to a The Rest is Politics podcast last night with Alastair Campbell and Liam Byrne (former Treasury bod) about why populism is 'taking over'. Byrne observed how wages started to stagnate around 2004 and Labour hadn't really realised until later on. He and Campbell were musing about the causes as if it weren't bloody obvious.

One minute Socialists oppose Private Education... but the next you say Socialists send their kids to Private Schools....
Which is it

I’ve often read on here posters saying “I am opposed to private education but I had no choice but to send dc private because she’s too sensitive/intelligent/whatever reason for state school but I hate doing it’ etc etc.

You think all out capitalism and everything led by business with no regulation is better for anyone??? Of course it isn't.

@Vix150 "Why do people not like socialism?"

Because it puts the fear of fucking god into the rich, powerful and top tiers of society. And for that very reason they ensure it is demonised in the press (which of course they mostly own). Those that would most benefit from socialism have therefore been systematically brainwashed to believe it's the devil's own work.

The PRCs version of socialism has the state owning land, and controlling and subsidising strategic sectors while also allowing private enterprise. Its also a country with huge income inequality - more so than in many western countries. So I guess it works if you are in a decent job in a city...not so much if you are on the breadline in a rural area. Particularly as even the welfare state there is also unequal - you get a less comprehensive and lower level of support in rural areas than in a city

We need capitalism, of course, for many of the reasons given but we also need Socialism too.

We had pure capitalism in the Victorian age.... so we know what that gets us.

I'm sure few want to go back to that period in time.

uh? you think the leader of the opposition is listened to by the POTUS ?

Really??? there is nothing factual about what you re posting at all.

His reasoning not to go to war was to avoid a costly ME war/little Congressional support/Russian involvement & wanted a diplomatic solution.

I do think you re placing Ed a little outside his lane on this one.

For sure. But are they ok now do you think ?

They do all the state ownership of means of production. Yes, they appear to have lots of private companies, but ultimately they are state. State owns all the land, banks, finance etc.

Take Jack Ma of Alibaba for example. He made his billions, then basically the Party said he was too big. so they forced him out and took over.

I am not saying I agree with any of this. I am just asking if you think it's an example of socialism working ? Although they call it "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics". On paper, it is very much socialist.

I don't think many of us would like to live through the period in which they got there.....