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?

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.

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.

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

I was talking about first-world countries.

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.

Have you tried discussing this point with a nurse, a teacher or a delivery driver?

Yes, yes and no.

The first two have training behind them and can advance their careers if they choose. They can also move into the private sector if they want.

I don't know what the job prospects are for delivery drivers. However, if you can drive you have a marketable skill, especially if you are a HGV, PSV. driver

So capitalism only works in first world countries? It certainly doesn't look like it's working in the UK or USA, unless you're rich.

Excellent point.

The first two have training behind them and can advance their careers if they choose. They can also move into the private sector if they want

Right. The private sector of education where you aren't necessarily going to have teacher's pension or teacher's pay. And you don't necessarily even need a teacher's qualification!

"Rich" is a relative term.

So is "poverty".

When Starmer bangs on about "lifting children out of poverty" what does he mean? Some families think they are poor if their kids can't have Nike trainers and Smartphones.

This is proper bollocks. So bollocks I'm wondering if it's in good faith.

I know teachers who have left mainstream teaching and coach private pupils. In that respect they have all the advantages/disadvantages of running a business.

However, I concede that this only works IMO if you are qualified in a subject that is in demand, such modern languages or maths.

Instead of being rude, how about telling me why you think it's "bollocks" ?

Wow. Tell me you have no idea without telling me you have no idea.

Modern languages? You really do have no idea.

That doesn't answer the question does it?

Possibly in good faith but so out of touch I can only assume where they get their news from. I'm not continuing to engage with them.

I know several people who do well teaching modern languages privately, mainly European languages.

Agreed - but none of this supports your proposition that capitalism means you get a reward that is proportionate to how hard you work.

By and large, capitalism rewards those who are best placed to work its systems.

The bit about 'hard work' is a lie. Everyone knows the essential workers - finally recognised as essential during the pandemic, yet still not paid extra - work a hell of a lot harder than white-collar bods with comfy salaries and pension plans.

Going further, you might have noticed that media like the Economist, the FT, Times, etc are saying Britain is now an 'inheritocracy'. This makes society even more unfair - if your parents weren't in a position to make capitalism work for them, you're at such a huge disadvantage you're unlikely to ever catch up. You can't redo your parents, so that's really quite the trap no matter how hard you work.

... And the people with the comfy jobs, whose parents paid their house deposit and who will inherit enough to see their own children well set up, still need cleaners and carers and deliveries, etc. Who are still paid so little that they literally can't live on the wages, despite working so hard that their backs are fucked before they reach 60; who will inherit little and leave even less.

I've got nothing against a stratified society. I do, however, believe in collective responsibility and social mobility. Those two concepts are now seen as borderline communist, therefore a Bad Thing.

Please yourself.

If you choose not to explain anything that's up to you.

Some rather patronising people on this thread it seems.....

There are some interesting concepts here.

I really don't know who these people are whose parents paid their house deposit, that's another world to me.

Most of my friends are business people who put themselves through college/Uni/apprenticeships and other avenues of training by working in factories/shops/cleaning, dog walking etc.
They bought their first homes by taking in a lodger if single. Then it was a 2 up 2 down.

Then they took the chance on starting a business and made it pay through hard work.

I maintain that opportunities are there for bettering one's life if people will take them.

When you take any theoretical example of these ways of organising society they can always make to be sound good, be it capitalism or socialism. The reality of living examples of socialism, fundamentally communist states, is they have been brutal, inequitable, and economically failed states. Currently socialism as is being pursued in the UK is destroying the country. We now have a welfare bill that outstrips income tax receipts, a large group who can’t be arsed to work but vigourously enthusiastic about taxing the life out of anyone who does

Because people don't all fit in the same box and speaking for myself are sick of the endless labels

Yes. And what I find interesting is that Xi has described heath care and social safety nets as capitalist things. And he does have a point, it's partially true. And also of course, he would say that because the 1.4 billion people under him keep hinting that it would be rather nice to have it.

Mass education was also a capitalist thing, long before socialism and social progress came about. The capitalists of the industrial revolution wanted workers who could count, write things down, use rulers etc. So mass education, apart from religious indoctrination, was really social welfare for the industrialists. The "for the good of society" came later.

Bernie does this really well. Put him in a roomful of Republican Kentucky miners, and he can explain the benefits of it all and get them agreeing and applauding him. But dare mention democratic socialism to them, and you will be met with accusations of COMMIE.