Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

American influence. You've only got to look at the replies above to see people think of socialism as a totalitarian, anti-enterprise, undemocratic system that stifles individuality. Americans can't understand European-style responsible capitalism and think we're all communists. For some reason, they see things like universal healthcare and strong food safety standards as one small step away from North Korea.

I was talking about first-world countries.

If that was true, the richest people in the world would be currently poor women. In Africa and Asia and Europe.

I don't think any one model of politics is perfect.

At least with capitalism you get a reward that is proportionate to how hard you work.

Interestingly I would say I've yet to see a working model of capitalism.

The problem is that capitalism works for the rich, and they own the media so perpetuate the idea that socialism is bad / one small step from communism etc.

No need to be patronising.
That's why I asked for examples of countries with a working model of Socialism.

No. Russia is an authoritarian, right wing oligarchy. Russia is not in any way Socialist, as anyone who knows the meaning of words would tell you.

Russia is in Northern Europe, do you mean Russia as an example?

Countries in Northern Europe and Scandinavia.

Which countries do you refer to?

I'd argue that this is the failure of American interventionism, not socialism. The whole of Central America, and some of the Caribbean, is a testament to the evil of capitalism, in the form of the US. Not socialism.

And its the main tenet/backbone of Christianity.

Most of Northern Europe and Scanindavia work socialism.

The Patriarchy.

Because it doesn't work.

"Equal opportunity for uniformity" my mum used to say.

I have yet to see a working model of socialism.

Culture warriors.

The RW Press, who pit people against people.

As @Batties say. Socialism is the first step in the transition to communism. State ownership of means of production. Communism is actually stateless society. to each his needs.

I think it is an odd thing really. Because the idea is what socialism is has expanded in liberal societies into something that it actually is not. Some of the cores are there, such as nationalized industry (means of production), but much of the modern things people think of as socialism are not actually socialism.

I have long thought there needs to be a new word for the modern western colloquial concept of what socialism is. Because the new version is not the classic version. Look it up in a dictionary and you will see.

Democratic socialism , as US senator Bernie Sanders is, is probably closest to the idea of what the person of today thinks of it as,. Mixed economy, some nationalized industry (utilities) with mostly capitalism, strong social safety net, equal rights etc. So it's really a wee bit of classic socialism with liberal safety net and progressive policies, all thrown in.

But the problem is, that the media and many writers do not distinguish between the different variations, or people don't know the difference. Labour of today for example is really democratic socialism, but Corbyn's Your Party is pretty much almost full on classic socialism. But the media and many people say they are both SOCIALIST. It is all lumped under the same banner.

And being put under the same banner means people perceptions instantly go to the full on version.

I think it's like if I were to say Mary is a Tory, Joan is a Thatcherite, people know the difference. Variations of the same thing but different. But if I say Starmer is a Democratic Socialist, Corbyn is a socialist, many people don't see the distinction. They default to both are Corbyn. And that by the way brings up connotations of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam. You can see the latter happening in the comments above.

Does that make sense. I don't think I explained that too well. And I think that is the problem, because the same word, "socialism", is being used to mean things that are actually different.

100,% this. Press and broadcasters are often owned by billionaires. To understand politics follow the money.

But since we are human and it is a system that humans will be living under, that is a pretty (very!) strong disadvantage of it.

This.

People like to be rewarded for doing well.

We all know how annoying it is when colleagues don't pull their weight but still get the same reward.

then its not the system thats at fault its humans who are plus capitalism is only sucessful if it can exploit labour and workers , as it proves now, many companies are not paying what a role should be paid vs what profits they can make, eg the nmw matching some roles that should be paid alot more yet are not due to lack of profits

Take a holiday to Cuba. There's your answer.

I've been 3x. Love the place. But would hate to live there.

They still use oxen to plow the land. But they have amazing resiliance and still enjoying life, music, dancing and so kind to strangers. I was there solo.

I feel desperately sad for them right now.

But, for a holiday, give me Curacao any day.

Because it removes the incentive to do better.

Because it doesn't work - for the same reasons that communism doesn't work and leads to untold suffering, and for the same reason Animal Farm is not really a fairy tale.
When people realise they get the same whether they do lots of work or a little, people don't do lots of work. Human condition innit.
I'm always open to hearing arguments for socialism though.