Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

Yes but its still well down the pecking order for things that fundamentally affect this country (and I'm not sure these types of people will be anti immigration anyway). And obviously theres absolutely nothing anyone in the UK can do to affect any of it anyway particular as we have such a supine leader. We now have even less influence now if we ever had any. So it's really a bit of a waste of time.

But obviously that and trans are the issues du jour and people like to look trendy.

Capitalism suits the mega rich who run everything far too well. Where's the incentive to change? Socialism is viewed negatively as that's the view we are fed by much of the mainstream and social media, who are also, curiously, owned by a handful of super rich individuals.

Scandinavian countries have worked because they have had a strong social contract. This has been starting to fracture. If people don’t buy into the system then the system stops working.

Well, failure to address Palestine has led to almost all conflicts in the ME, Afghanistan, Iraq, huge influx of migrants....

Now its caused war which will lead to inflation and further erosion in living standards....

Labour's poll rating has more than halved in the last two years while Reform and the Green Party's have gone up significantly.

How is that at odds with me knowing people who've shifted away from Labour and towards Reform and the Green Party?

It's something I think about a lot! Most of the women have no children so could it be a lack of purpose / belonging?

It's also interesting to note that these issues have become their identities and you'd think they have become obsessed with ie in one case trans rights and another Palestine. Yet they ALWAYS refuse to engage in any argument / debate about them. I wonder if they understand anything about them at all and it's all simply because they feel they are part of something by pretending they care about this.

So when you say " they like to be dependent on the state ", I suspect you mean they liked to benefit from the new policies of the state. Because what you describe is really the early stages of a socialist country. Eg the PRC in the 50's and 60's, Venezuela under Chavez in the 2000s.

I was just wondering, because it read like you were meaning so called "dole scroungers" living on state handouts.

You can't know many people, recent polling puts Con, Reform and Greens on or around 20%, with Labour on 18%.

So all well within the margin for error.

You seem to be dismissing or ridiculing women having a view or rather one different to yours, odd on this forum.

Agree with this and on human behaviour in general too much power to a small group in the version of a state tends to go wrong for everyone bar those people.

As below Nordic countries are not socialist, but just more redistribution and wealthy from assets.

That's so interesting. Because in the great scheme of things and the huge fundamental issues this country faces for us and our children, Palestine and trans rights are well down the list of what should be the priorities of most people. I wonder why women of that age have prioritised those particular issues. Fiddling while Rome burns.

No , there was no welfare state where I lived because there was no money.

Dependence on the government to run everything. Government take over of industry. Redistribution of land and wealth. Big authoritarian government, rather than smaller lighter touch.

From different parts of my life I've got working class and middle class people in my life.

Over the last ten years every single working class person I know has moved away from the left - mostly from Labour to Probably Won't Vote, but at least one from Labour to Reform.

It's much more diverse with the middle classes - but there has been a notable shift of women aged 35-55 who have gone from No Interest In Politics to Labour and now Green Party. They've all done the virtue signals on their social media from trans rights to Palestine.

Yes - capitalism is far from perfect but is the best system we have found so far, a bit like democracy.

However it does seem obvious that some things, like water for example, are almost certainly better under state control and shouldn’t have been privatised in this country. Some areas of life need fairly heavy regulation to be safe. It also seems nuts to have a welfare system, as we do, that pours money from the public purse into the hands of landlords, private businesses etc, in a way that doesn’t achieve much in the longer term except impoverishing the country further.

I used to think I was a socialist. Not anymore. Like PP has said, I don’t want to work hard to find people who sit on the arses get the same… something I see a lot in my line of work.

I do not include disabled people in this.

Is this a game? Countries beginning with F?

France

Exactly. That's why now it's mainly the elite and high earners that support Labour. As they have the cushion of wealth to not have to worry about earning a wage to put food on the table and instead, have the luxury to support utopian idealistic governments whose ridiculous policies do more harm to the very people they pretend they want to support. Out of a desire to appear "caring". You see it all over MN. Very peculiar.

A lot of people are missing one key point.

Capitalism rewards the rich, of course.

But the possibility of becoming rich (or at least making yourself better off) provides hope and a purpose for very many people.

The journey to somewhere is where most people find fulfilment. Even if you never get to those heady heights.

In a socialist society there is nowhere to go so you lose the hope. Without that, what is there, really?

We are human after all.

Finland.

Well exactly. I suppose they come under the umbrella of "champagne socialists" which also applies to many members of the current Cabinet. You could also describe them as hypocrites. Or just exhibiting normal human nature in wanting the best for themselves and their families. It's a shame they don't apply that criteria to everyone else but I suppose if they did they wouldn't be able to signal their own virtue and "caring" natures...

Re Thatcher, you brought her up not me. I haven't given you an answer.

LOL. Tell that to the carers working 60 hour weeks or the single mums juggling two jobs.

Exactly this.

Every country on the planet that embraced capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries saw a massive reduction in poverty, often from around 80-90% to 10-20%.

Every country that didn't saw almost no reduction in poverty. Then they did embrace capitalism, ie China, Russia, India and saw a massive reduction in poverty.

Socialism is a luxury belief that now simply exists so that stupid people can tell themselves they are good people.

Because It doesn’t work. The more it is tried, the more it fails. The problem is human nature:

danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/if-professors-really-believe-in-socialism-why-dont-they-try-this-classroom-experiment/

😃😃

Socialism exists in theory so that stupid people can feel good about themselves that they contribute to a system in which underprivileged people get benefits.

Socialism exists in practice so that the economy is deliberately tanked and people are deliberately made poorer to fund virtue signalling measures like Rainbow Crossings to show solidarity with transvestites.

Contrary post...

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

Which is it?

We've falling roll numbers and until HMRC post up the figures in VAT collected, we don't yet know

You bought up that we haven't had a real Conservative party recently but don't want to say when we last had one....but i 'll assume you mean Thatcher's Govt.

A bit of a aberration, as she was very different to the Tories that went before.