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?

All countries have good and bad times...and all economic indicators are historical....

Perhaps you should pick the UK as a shining example of what capitalism does for country?

Germany will pull out of this, already predicted to have similar growth to the UK but on an economy 50% bigger than ours, despite starting in last place in 1945.

Pls expand on "built its wealth on poorer countries to the south.....

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.

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

Well, people over the age of 55 own most of the wealth. You can't dismiss generational inequality. The Boomers have spent the country's money since the War on free education, free medical care, pensions, playgrounds, new roads etc. The younger generations won't be able to afford these nice things. You can't overtax people because of the Laffer curve. And there are too many unproductive people in this country to make the tax base big enough.

Housing prices I'd add as being a cause of inequality. And that wealth disparity is unearned wealth. But thats the markets for you! Would you weight Stamp Duty regionally perhaps?

What is your evidence for the rapid falling away of UK wealth? Section 2.1

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10210/CBP-10210.pdf

I didn't dismiss intergenerational inequality. I explicitly acknowledged it and then pointed out that it was massively dwarfed by intragenerational inequality. The latter of which you seemed determined to ignore despite the fact that it is much much larger.

Younger generations absolutely will be able to afford nice things if wealth is distributed equitably. Gdp per capita is about twice what it was 40 years ago. The idea that we are poor is a myth that gets trotted out whenever people want to cut help for the most vulnerable.

There is very little evidence that we are at the peak or beyond of the laffer curve at the moment and at any rate I'd rather be slightly to the right than slightly to the left given all the documented effects of inequality.

House prices are both a cause and consequence of inequality. Lvt seems an interesting idea here.

Think youve muddled yourself in the first paragraph. Im going to assume you meant intra rather than inter. Or did you?

If people over 55 own most of the wealth that does suggest intergenerational inequality?

The redistribution taxation policies of Rachel Reeves are increasing unemployment which will increase inequality unfortunately.

What does lvt mean?

If people over 55 own most of the wealth that does suggest intergenerational inequality?

Intergenerational inequality exists but is much smaller than intragenerational inequality. What part of this is complicated? And why are you more focussed on the smaller of the problems?

Lvt is land value tax

Im trying to engage with you politely so please try and do the same. I am a perfectly intelligent individual who doesnt appreciate being patronised.

You have not been clear about what you meant. You used "intergenerational" twice to mean two separate things in your PP. I was simply asking for clarity.

If people over 55 own most of the wealth that suggests a disparity on wealth between the generations, no?

Regarding intragenerational wealth yes there is inequality. But socialism will not solve the problems created. Capitalism is the only proven method worldwide to raise people out of poverty. And that is the aim isnt it? Not "equality". Because people arent all equal.

Well actually you were pretty snarky above weren't you. You can't start insisting upon politeness now.

You also keep ignoring what I'm saying. I've acknowledged repeatedly now that there exists inequality between the generations, your claim was that it was the most important component of inequality and that is clearly wrong. I honestly can't be bothered to say it a further time.

I've also argued up thread that we should stop trying to carve everything up into socialism and capitalism. There are virtually no societies that are exclusively one or the other and enormous confusion as to what the terms actually mean.

The questions that interest me are how do we reduce wealth inequality in our country because there is so much evidence that it is harmful and dangerous at its current levels. It's profoundly frustrating to me that there are so many people that can't even see that it's a problem and a priority. By the time they figure it out it will be too late.

You asked to engage with people and then you are rude so I can see why you're not having much luck.

Ive also dealt with your point several times
regarding intragenerational inequality. You will never get "equality" because people aren't equal.

Your first response was to accuse me of being a parody account and not being in the UK.

At what point did I ask for absolute equality?

Oh yes...well that was before I decided to "engage" with you at your request. Ive changed my mind as you don't seem to read anything I write. Eg when have I said that you have asked "for absolute equality"?

Thank you for acknowledging that you were rude.

"You will never get "equality" because people aren't equal"
This clearly implies that I want equality. I asked the question precisely because I read something that you wrote.

Well i thankyou for providing me with the evidence....

2: Household wealth after March 2022

ONS statistics are only available up to March 2022. The Resolution Foundation think tank estimated that, since 2022, rising interest rates, high inflation and falling asset have led to a large fall in wealth. The national accounts measure of aggregate ‘household net worth’ shows that total wealth fell by 19% in real terms between 2021 and 2023

Always pays to read your own link first?

So much for capitalism......

The questions that interest me are how do we reduce wealth inequality in our country because there is so much evidence that it is harmful and dangerous at its current levels

@Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight
How do you think wealth inequality should be reduced? Should there be a maximum amount of land one person can own? Or would it be land value - 1000 acres of unproductive mountain is obviously worth less than land that could be sold for building.
What about valuable works of art? Would they be taxed?
How would governments prevent people leaving UK and taking their money with them?

Because people are selfish.

Ok. Well its been fun (ish). See if you can "engage" with someone else.

The chart in section 2.1, which is what I looked at, does not reflect that. The ONS appear to have picked out a particularly high year in 2021 to compare with, which my first reaction would be was a result of people having savings does to having nothing to spend their money on during lockdown. There is no "rapid fall" in the longer term trend which most economy would be looking at, and it remains to be seen whether the very recent one continues. But thanks for pointing out that the ONS have presented a chart that doesn't illustrate what they are trying to say 😁

Thank you for engaging (haha).

Well it's a big question, it would have to be multi-pronged of course, and I'm open to ideas, although probably not knowledgeable enough to appraise all of them fully. In the short term what I would really like is for lots of clever people to get into a room and try and thrash it out.

I do think a land value tax is interesting not least because it targets an immobile asset. There could also be reforms to capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc. And then more investment in education and skills etc.

Another interesting idea is that industrial policy should be more mindful of inequality. Some sectors generate more inequality than others and the government could take this into consideration when investing or promoting investment. This approach seems promising because limiting inequality upstream is politically easier than allowing it to spiral and then trying to claw money back via taxation.

In the immediate term, I think one of the most pressing concerns is simply getting people to see this as a priority. It reminds me of the early debates on climate change, where scientists wasted decades trying to persuade the population and politicians that the problem was real and required action. Those delays showed us just how much easier it is to prevent than to remedy. And as with climate change, I don't think it will be easy - every solution will have drawbacks - but I worry about tipping points, that once certain individuals become wealthy enough, the associated problems may become intractable. So I think that generalised recognition of the problem is key.

Well there is Singapore under People's Action Party, South Korea under Park Chung hee, Japan under the LDP. All of which were right wing conservative dominant political parties but with a strong state intervention twist.

More recently there is the strong success of the Argentinian economy which expanded 4.4% in 2025, reversing a 1.3% contraction in 2024, driven by agriculture, mining, and financial services. The recovery has been driven by Javier Milei's right wing administration, projections indicate further growth of 5.2% in 2025 and 4.3% in 2026, alongside sharp declines in inflation.

Correction, the Resolution Think Tank, cherry picked a very short time period. They are a Left Wing Think Tank (is that an oxymoron? 😁? ).

What a surprise.

Pls expand on "built its wealth on poorer countries to the south.....

Please do some research of your own.

One little nugget for you, just a part of the whole story, from a Left Wing source

www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/greece-military-spending-debt-crisis

@Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight
Thank you for answering my question.

I think the simplest answer to why socialism is viewed negatively and previous posts in inequality is best summed up in a parable I have paraphrased from President Javier Milei of Argentina:

So there are two neighbouring poor farmers, Jose and Juan. Jose had a goat that he was incredibly proud of and that made him very happy. Juan didn't have a goat and was very jealous of Jose.

Then one day Juan was walking along the road and spotted an old lamp. After rubbing it a genie appeared and offered him one wish (it wasn't a very generous genie).

After thinking about it Juan decided that he wished that Jose's goat died.

And that is essentially socialism, rather than wish for a goat or even a 100 goats, Juan wanted to create equality by reducing his neighbours "wealth " rather than trying to increase his own "wealth".

And that is why in the long run socialism never works.