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?

Err aren't Fujitsu and its fore runner ICL private sector.....

& the design concepts developed in the APT are now used around the world in Hi Speed trains.....

The water industry, is a lesson on how NOT to privatise an industry, its non competitive, is essential for life and should have stayed as it was, in public hands.
How many billions sent abroad from profits, around 70 billion in dividends!

I've already said it shouldn't have been privatised. I've already said Ofwat either didn't have enough power or didn't exercise that power, which should have stopped then borrowing against assets to enable big dividend payments.

There's no point throwing around big numbers out of context though. The water industry is over £100bn a year and has been privatised for approaching 40 years. Less than 2% a year going out in dividend isn't the issue, profit isn't the problem. The problem is supplying the service to the customer at less that it would have cost under public ownership. Socialists always focus on the profit. Caring capitalists focus on the cost to the end user.

I have been an employee in the public sector in two areas, and I've seen at first hand the productivity of a large public sector unit increase from less than 3 cases per case worker a day to 7 cases per case worker per day with no loss in quality, when private sector management was brought in to manage exactly the same staff. I've seen what happens when you remove profit as a driver and supply ostensibly limitless public sector funds instead. The a State does not make a good manager of the means of production.

Global capitalism has been allowed to run riot , though, it's no nirvana.

No.

Look up the history of ICL like I suggested.

You can't argue with lived experience. We have all learned this by now. BR was dreadful and unless you experienced it you won't understand I'm afraid.

The year of record delays and cancellations was in 2024, 1 in 25 services cancelled/delayed.

Fair enough. There was huge problem with train driver numbers and sickness levels, much of the shortage a hangover from when new driver training was stopped during Covid. And of course in spite of having really well paid jobs, the drivers were striking. And as the payout that Starmer gave them immediately he was appointed, driver pay was still very much in the control of the Public Sector, a condition that was written into the privatisation contract, presumably under pressure from the unions at the time.

I did, used it extensively, both as a teenager to get into town and for regular long distance travel when i started work.
We also had school trips, both at primary and secondary, can't remember them being the disaster the current rail system is now eg look at how train companies have fined and even prosecuted in court for genuine mistakes in railcard or ticketing?

My memory is that it affordable and whilst the trains were nothing to write home about, neither were the alternatives, buses were slow and noisy, cars the same.

I do not recall them breaking down or not turning up.

& thats before we get to the eye watering cost of taking train now a days.

Thats my "lived experience" so please stop arguing against it 😂

How old are you out of interest? And where were you getting this daily train If that's not too personal.

I suspect you must be the only person in the UK who lived through the service British Rail provided and thinks it was better than today.

I've being doing some digging for statistics but they weren't reliably kept under BR. I had a recollection that the definition of a delayed train was changed from 60 minutes to 15 on privatisation and Google AI suggests that's correct, it also confirms my recollection that it was so hard to get a refund it wasn't worth the effort.

The stats that are available improve in the couple of years before privatisation, when more money was invested to make it fit to sell.

I don't think it's going well at the moment and I don't wholly disagree with it going back into public sector management. I don't doubt there will be immediate improvements. I do doubt they will be sustained, because sooner or later it will come down to making huge capital investments to keep it up to scratch and the government of the day will fight shy of increasing the National Debt to pay for it.

They need to solve the track/train issue perhaps as problems on the track outside their control is what train companies usually blame delays on. I suppose you can't increase competition if the track is owned by one train company though.

But a state monopoly (unless you have a functioning decent state, which we don't) is not the answer.

Going back to socialism, people forget that the reason the trains and utilities were privatised was because they are all hugely capital intensive and the country was crawling is way back from having gone begging to the IMF for a loan. We weren't in a position to be able to load the National Debt with the money needed. We could not have borrowed the money except at too high a cost. A first glance says that the National Debt was lower by 12.5% as a result of the saddle, lowering interest payment and enabling lower taxation.

These days of course socialist economists will tell us all that debt doesn't matter, only the ability to pay the interest. Unfortunately the markets that we borrow it from don't agree.

IMF loan was 1976, we borrowed from them about 1% of our GDP.

Rail and water were privatised some 18 years and 13years later respectively.

We could have had huge revenues from NS oil for capital investment, instead it was squandered on tax cuts, oh and privatisation involved a great deal of cost too, not least to the consumer and in subsidy.

Utilities were privatised out of ideological reasons.

The only one i can think of that worked was Telecoms, though decades later, its still an industry largely controlled by Openreach/BT.

The only one i can think of that worked was Telecoms, though decades later, its still an industry largely controlled by Openreach/BT.

I sometimes wonder in discussing things with you whether you're living in the same world as me. Openreach still has a strong hold on the wires, but Virgin has is own network and there are satellite providers, not limited to Starlink.

As for providing a service, there are more offers out there than you can shake a stick at.

I'm also baffled that you don't think that the privatisation of electricity supply (not necessarily generation, which I don't think should ever have been private, same argument as water, a necessity of life).

Did you prefer it when we had "take it or leave it" pricing and the service levels that go with monopoly suppliers?

IMF loan was 1976, we borrowed from them about 1% of our GDP.

We didn't need to borrow what we asked for and what was agreed. The fact the IMF was underpinning us restored the confidence of the markets in the basket case of the UK economy at the time. We were able to borrow from the markets at reasonable prices again and didn't need to draw down the loan.

Don't you get how bloody shameful it was for the 5th biggest economy in the world to have to beg for a loan?

Well, i ve no idea what world you live in thats true enough..... OR have 70% penetration, BT 33% of BB.
The 2 companies, still work hand in glove...

VM are only really an option in cities.

Offers? lol... you mean the fixed £3 (min) per year increase, way above inflation, fixed by OfCom.

I ve worked for over 35years in Telecoms, i ve seen the the total screw ups of cowboy companies, lack of support, the constant blame when there are faults.

But as i said, it has overall been a success.

No, as we have seen, most of these companies folded as they were very poorly run.
Its a fixed market, made "competitive" via massive state regulation.

Service levels? mmmm the 25% of people with smart meters, that don't work, that are never recalibrated might argue with that... among other problems.

National Grid offer "service levels" that are appalling, a complete monopoly and don't even carry out basic mtce, its cheaper for them to pay any fines than to cut back trees, provide generators, upgrade old over head cabling.

NG also have taken over many regional network companies, reducing service levels even further.

As we have some of the most expensive electricity in the world, i would say that "privatisation" has been a complete failure.

I haven't a clue what 3% increase you are taking about in telecoms services. Every year that goes by since privatisation we've either had price reductions offered by competing companies or massive increases in service for similar money.

Still only 1% and it was needed (though some economists now argue that it was never required) after OPEC hiked oil prices by 300% and the mishandling of the economy by the Tories in the early 70s... the 3 day week/black outs, often attributed to Labour, actually only occurred under the Tories......

I love the use of language though "begged".... i mean you do know what the IMF is set up for don't you....

Well you're mixing up a while load of different issues there, but mostly I think you are deluded if you think things would have been any better if it had stayed in public ownership. My husband has many stories about the piss poor management and productivity when he was employed in it.

TBH read what i wrote (i said a £3 annual increase) not 3%.

All ISPs are allowed to hike prices by 10% every year... most BB packages cost £30 or more... esp if you want higher bandwidth/speeds.

BT was privatised in 1984, i doubt very much you ve seen improvements in services and lower costs every year since.....

End of discussion with you, you cannot form an argument with resorting to insults (the default position from the 'right)

I've tried to keep it polite with you across a few threads, its a pity you fail do the same.

I think @Imdunfer has been pretty reasonable and patient. No particular insults so no need to huff off?

The left seem to be far more prone to insults as a "default position" in my view. Not you particularly, Alexandra. But the left seem to often struggle with taking their own medicine.

I'm sorry that was a typo, I knew it was £3 but I can't find anywhere that suggests Ofcom mandate it.

All ISPs are allowed to hike prices but they all compete against each other and we have the MMC to make sure that do. It's a highly competitive market.

And I certainly have seen either lower prices for what I already have or service improvement. You've worked in Telecoms for years, you say. Have you not noticed bandwidth increasing year by year, and that you can now watch a film streamed to your phone?

Don't you think £30 is a flipping bargain for what you get for it compared to what it used to cost to rent and use a telephone?

I pay £1 a week for my phone and I have done for, I think, a decade now. Every 3 months I get even more minutes/texts/megabytes, depending which I chose and the price is going down with inflation.

Insults are the default of the right? Another thing we will have to disagree on.

I'm very happy to stop discussing politics and economics with you (though I see you carried on when you said you wouldn't) . I find your socialist views very typically entrenched and your memories of public ownership extraordinarily rose tinted.

Regarding not engaging in further debate, I reserve the right to challenge you each time you repeat your assertion that the current fall in unemployment rates is any kind of good thing when it's actually largely a result of people giving up looking for a job in despair of finding one or it being worthwhile if they do.

The biggest two economic acts of vandalism were perpetrated by Conservatives.

Heath: sold North Sea drilling rights as he did not believe that there was oil under the North Sea.

Thatcher: sold off the family silver - some needed to tbf eg Sealink; British Rail; BEA & BOAC. And her monetarist policies resulted in huge unemployment & subsequent benefits bills.