Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

Sorry yes, income, our "wealth" is based on the pack of cards which is housing... rapidly falling away

It is factually inaccurate that the main inequality is generational. Yes, the boomers have more than younger generations. And yes I agree that something should be done about that.

But intergenerational inequality is completely and utterly dwarfed by intra-generational inequality. At present the top 10% and own about 50% of the wealth and this is only getting worse. The bottom half own virtually nothing. You can find this information so easily on the internet from reliable sources such as the IFS and the ONS.

A more redistributive tax system would not impoverish us. There is loads of research on this and it all suggests the opposite which is that increasing wealth inequality is a drag on growth because of its terrible effects on asset prices and meritocracy. Moderate redistribution is typically growth neutral or positive and has all sorts of benefits in terms of health and well-being.

As I said, I wrote a post about this earlier on specifically this topic.

You are confusing per capita GDP or per capita income with per capita wealth.

The per capita wealth in the UK far exceeds that of Germany.

Good grief @Imdunfer do you know what "Historically" means?

Germany might be doing less well now but it has a per capita wealth far above the UK's

What's the point of picking out a country as being more succesful if all you mean is back in the past? It has built its per capita wealth on the back of the poorer EU countries in the south. It's an astonishing country to choose as an example to celebrate socialism.

There is inequality agreed. But the main inequality is generational. We need a transfer of wealth from Boomers (which is happening). The triple lock pension is unsustainable. The older generation have bankrupted the younger who will never be able to afford the lifestyle the older generation had.

In my view socialism is immoral. It treats private property and people's money as belonging to the State and that the state can take it for their own purposes as and when they chose. And dictate how you spend the remainder (no choice in education for example no matter the cost to the taxpayer). As I mentioned upthread, conservatism treats your money as your own and choses how much to take as tax. It is not interested how you spend your own money or if you want to pass it on to your children This seems to me to be the moral approach.

Currently Labour are redistributing wealth from those who work to those that don't. This is immoral. Additionally human nature means that this will simply impoverish the country as people chose to work less or to go on benefits. Or not employ people. Or if they can, they can leave the country. Its a bleak future which is being borne out in the rising unemployment figures.

The biggest % rise in benefit spend came under the Tories.... rather ironically... with large increases in benefits because inflation boomed under their watch.

I ve worked under both Lab and Con Governments & done well under both, i feel that the Cons say they will give me more money to spend as i see fit but don't, what they do is cut services, so i'm forced to spend money on things i used to not have too... ie vehicle repairs caused by potholes, private dental fees... these aren't optional.

Numbers leaving the UK? wonder they will look like post Iran? haven't around 100k left the ME for the UK recently...
The increase in people leaving the UK began post 2016.

Unemployment is still below the historic average but has been increasing steadily since 2022

I note you use Socialism to describe Labour (we are in the UK) but Conservatism for the opposing pov.

There is inequality agreed. But the main inequality is generational. We need a transfer of wealth from Boomers (which is happening). The triple lock pension is unsustainable. The older generation have bankrupted the younger who will never be able to afford the lifestyle the older generation had.

In my view socialism is immoral. It treats private property and people's money as belonging to the State and that the state can take it for their own purposes as and when they chose. And dictate how you spend the remainder (no choice in education for example no matter the cost to the taxpayer). As I mentioned upthread, conservatism treats your money as your own and choses how much to take as tax. It is not interested how you spend your own money or if you want to pass it on to your children This seems to me to be the moral approach.

Currently Labour are redistributing wealth from those who work to those that don't. This is immoral. Additionally human nature means that this will simply impoverish the country as people chose to work less or to go on benefits. Or not employ people. Or if they can, they can leave the country. Its a bleak future which is being borne out in the rising unemployment figures.

Good grief @Imdunfer do you know what "Historically" means?

Germany might be doing less well now but it has a per capita wealth far above the UK's

My point very obviously is that the right has no unique claim on being sensible. As is also very obvious, my primary point is about the pernicious effects of inequality. This is the important issue that will affect subsequent generations and with which we have a basic moral obligation to engage. So why don't you engage with that?

Whats your point about "Truss"? You made the point first. Now expand. No onr can engage if you don't explain yourself.

Kind of proving my point about lack of engagement. Where is your substantive response to the plethora of evidence about the perils of rising inequality? Or the points about changing GDP per capita over time?

I live in the UK and I love my country dearly and what I am witnessing is ordinary people being impoverished by wealth inequality. That perception is in accord with the work of top economists on the subject. But I guess you know better than them too.

The claim that there is no alternative to socialism and that the "right is a ludicrous option" is such a bizarre argument to make that I assumed it was a joke.

And the PP mentioned "Truss" as if that was some intellectual point and then complained that people aren't engaging with her.

Whats parody or overseas about it?

Its a valid pov, as is yours.... but you cannot argue against it, so mock... very rightwing of you

This is a parody post or you are not currently living in the UK.

Germany? Good grief Alexandra, have you looked at what's being written right now about the basket case that the Grrmany economy is fast becoming?

The idea that the right is the sensible option is completely ludicrous. And after the Truss debacle I am honestly astonished that anyone still tries to maintain it.

I am left-wing because that is the evidence-based position. There is such a large body of evidence pointing towards inequality being the big threat of our lifetime. Evidence of harm to health, happiness, democracy and safety. Wealth inequality is spiralling and if we don't act now, we will lose control and it will become irreversible. That is something to be truly frightened about.

I've posted about this up thread but no one on the right seems to want to engage. Instead, there is this obsession, arguably driven by emotion, with immigration - for which there is much less evidence of harm. Along with a whole load of other misinformation, presumably generated by people with a very obvious motive for distracting attention from inequality in wealth.

If you are among the 99.9% then being left wing at the moment is not about "being nice" it's about basic self preservation.

@Pineneedlesincarpet Ken.

I cannae be bothered to even spell Conser

Yet where has 'right wing politics succeeded?

Lets look at the most successful (over time) European economy.. Germany, hardly Right wing... 60% to 80% unemployment benefit, a health service we can only dream off.. road rail network, 2nd to none.

Then there are the Scandanavian countries...

We had 14 years of RW Govt here, well, thats what the Con party would say we had.....

A total disaster, Austerity, Brexit, Truss, a collapsed NHS, the total removal of NHS dentistry.... a housing crisis....RW privatisations have left us vulnerable to pretty much any world event....

Bear in mind too, the RW have been in charge of the UK for most of the post war period.... what a success!! not.

The advancements in our society have all been as a result of left wing policies, Education, workers rights, Womens rights, equality, pollution, H&S at Work, NHS... even the Open University...

What has the RW done for ordinary people compared to this...

Hasn't Scotland got the highest drug related deaths of any comparable country worldwide? And an education system that has plummeted down the ranks.

Just to add to your accurate comment about socialism being kind to people.

Being left wing or a socialist is simply "nicer" than being right wing or capitalist. For example it's "nicer" or "kinder" to want to give more money to people claiming say PIP or motability.

It's kinder or nicer to want to let into the country migrants from poorer countries.

However if a right wing person introduces reality and asks where is the money going to come from to pay for those claiming PIP or motability or that increasing taxation and increasing welfare disincentives work then this is either flat out denied or shouted down as cruel. And "not nice" or "not kind" and to say such things you would have to be an unpleasant and unkind person.

Similarly with immigration if a right wing person questions how will the country cope with ever increasing migrants or is it unwise to allow unvetted people in to the country then this too must be because the person asking the question is unkind and probably racist.

Left wing and Socialism is all about politics of the heart, whereas right wing politics is all about politics of the head.