Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Why is socialism viewed so negatively in politics and media?

630 replies

Vix150 · 08/04/2026 23:37

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?

OP posts:
Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 16:30

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 16:24

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.

Edited

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.....

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 16:32

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 14:40

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

Edited

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.

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 16:32

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 16:32

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

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 16:47

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 16:29

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.

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?

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 16:49

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 16:32

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

Edited

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

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:01

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 16:47

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?

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.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:05

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:01

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.

Edited

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?

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:12

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:05

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

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:18

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:12

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.

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:30

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:18

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.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:32

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:30

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.

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:38

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:32

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?

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:43

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:38

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"?

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:59

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 17:43

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.

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 18:15

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 16:49

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

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......

Wintersonata · 17/04/2026 18:16

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?

SinuousTendrils · 17/04/2026 18:16

Because people are selfish.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 17/04/2026 19:04

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 17:59

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.

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

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 19:12

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 18:15

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 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 😁

Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight · 17/04/2026 19:14

Wintersonata · 17/04/2026 18:16

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?

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.

1dayatatime · 17/04/2026 19:15

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 14:00

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...

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.

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 19:16

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 19:12

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 😁

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.

Imdunfer · 17/04/2026 19:29

Alexandra2001 · 17/04/2026 16:30

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.....

Edited

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

Wintersonata · 17/04/2026 21:32

@Ifeellikechickentonightchickentonight
Thank you for answering my question.

1dayatatime · 17/04/2026 22:12

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.