Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

[Vix150]

Why do people not like socialism?

To me it doesn't seem disastrous but it's portrayed in the media as a horrific way for a society to run.

Any thoughts?

Private groups of people doing socialisty things is not a socialist system - that only comes about when the state takes control of the distribution and management of resources.

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

Oh that's how it's sold to the peasants to get them to revolt, sure.

Only in practice it's not because any state requires an apparatus to function, so it's just a different version of a state apparatus.

Truly communal decision making is possible only in tiny communities, and even then a leader almost always rises to the top of the decision making hierarchy.

Socialism destroys individuality, aspiration, and the desire to 'better' oneself. I don't agree with a single thing about it.

Then we are back around the circle to what I said.

All socialist societies have capitalism in them.

But that IS about profit. It's about me having planted a bean that cost 1p and exchanging the resulting crop of beans for something worth a £1.

That's profit, since the dawn of an agrarian society.

Socialism as an overall system doesn’t do this very well. North Korea is socialist and it’s not fairer, it’s more unequal.

Socialist societies by definition still retain low levels of private ownership however I imagine state interference would be high to negate any capitalist ideals.

Because socialism means to some people - more tax, more bureaucracy, less incentive, aspiration and growth, but more state control, and as a result the word has gained a negative reputation.

People understand, accept and agree with taxes providing public services and helping the vulnerable. What some people don’t like is the sense that socialism often creates an anti-success narrative, expands dependency, and makes the people who work and net contributors feel over burdened.

So it’s not just media and politics. Also it must be understood that socialism gained its negative reputation from historical events, many examples of which are discussed in this thread.

I think probably anything that's run by an iron clad dictator couldn't fairly be called a socialist country.

The closest we get that I know of is the Scandinavian countries with small populations who have a strong need social cooperation to survive their geography.

And even then Sweden is at the top in Europe of wealth (not income) disparity.

Can you name a successful socialist country that negates capital deals?

I don't think you're going to make a lot of money with those calculations.

More people are being deported than under tories . I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad to be honest. The issue with refugees happens a lot further back than the Kent coast that’s for sure. Socialism isn’t communism. I think that’s key to what has gone wrong in political debate: everything is polemical these days. Another nasty habit with got from USA. Polls are showing a slow improvement for labour. Farage’s are dropping again, he’ll be back with some other iteration of UKIP or whatever.Brexit has screwed us good and proper both economically and culturally.

Did you miss off an "I'm joking" emoji?

If you're unable to understand the example then further discussion is pointless.

It is called a socialist country and a few others that are similar.

The Nordic model is still capitalist.

Im sorry but further discussion is pointless until you have grasped some basic definitions. Your example was a good example - you said exchanging a product for a token was by definition profit. Its only profit if it is worth more than the good it was exchanged for, which you didn't clarify till your subsequent post. But your subsequent post didn't really show much understanding of the costs of production which is basic to understanding levels of profit. I think you need to go back to basics.

I think it was more the people on both sides that screwed us re Brexit unfortunately. A very unfortunate collection of politicians here both as PM and those in Parliament, in the EU and especially in Ireland. But I suppose that's the system we had.

And covid wrecking the economy of course and then leading to the Boris wave. We will never know what would have happened re Brexit if we hadn't had that as I don't think counterfactuals are helpful

What I meant was that capitalism in its true sense is not be able to co-exist in a socialist country - perhaps I misunderstood the point you were making in your post?

Like Jimmy Ma, the founder of Alibaba who got too successful and too outspoken for the likes of the Chinese government. He has now been ‘rehabilitated’.

This thread exemplifies the baggage connotations of socialism and also that OP asked what she thought was a simple question to a very complex societal problem.

Many people in the UK consider themselves socialists because they support the NHS, the welfare state, despise wealth creation, see huge levels of inequality and believe strongly in redistribution.

We don’t talk about social democracy enough in the UK, which I think is closer to where OPs question lands.

I’d totally agree with this. I’ve been to Cuba and had a year there as part of my degree and the biggest issue I saw was they are strangled by American sanctions. A lot of Cuba is run down purely because they can’t import parts they need. The cars, apart from the vintage, touristy ones tend to be Chinese as they will import to them.
however the university systems and hospitals are fantastic. Cuban doctors are regularly sent to other countries to assist and the patents they have developed are considerable. It would be interesting to see how they exist without American sanctions.

I honestly don't know how anybody can support wealth redistribution. Do you REALLY think it is fair to take money from those who have worked extra hard to earn it to give to people who, quite often, can't be bothered to get off their backsides and get a job??

"Despise wealth creation".

Concerning. Who do they expect will fund them if they are unable to fund themselves because they haven't "created any wealth"?

I think you're right. Democratic socialism and social democracy are what a lot of people on this thread are muddling up with socialism. And a lot of what people are talking about is just collectivism which has existed pretty much forever but can and does exist outside of a socialist structure. The definining characteristic of socialism is structural state control.

@SharonEllis, your point on collectivism is apt, on this thread.

Society does have a moral duty to provide public services and to protect the vulnerable, but there is no free society that exists where the individuals rights of choice and autonomy are denied.

Some of today’s political thought and leaning, does point to collectivism and the belief that will of the masses is sovereign over and above one’s individual rights.

Collectivism is a different thing from "will of the masses".

And one's individual rights are not and should not always override the good of society. There's been too much of a swing to the rights of the individual recently at the expense of the national interest, exemplified by Starmer's rule of lawyers.