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?

Agreed re North Sea Oil. We should have copied Norway and kept it owned by the state and had a ban on spending or investing the proceeds domestically.

Huge unemployment was a result of deliberately allowing all the zombie companies that had no prospect of competing in a global economy to go bust and shed jobs. Productivity increased hugely, the UK became a country with a flexible workforce that others wanted to invest in and unemployment reduced again (though not to previous levels until later) leaving the county much better placed to face the future instead of limping along with unions telling companies who they could and couldn't employ and what they could and couldn't get them to do.

I agree with the description that Thatcher was the Funeral Director of 1980s industry, not the murderer.

The murderers were global capitalism (the same global capitalism that gives you your cheap clothes) helped by unbelievably restrictive unions.

The kind of unions who still have fax machines being used this morning in Northern Rail trains (in Public ownership for over 5 years now, no improvement in service levels) because they demand more money for their members to switch to easier methods of communication. Northern Rail managers explained to Andy Burnham that they have no power to introduce "new" communications like email without Union agreement, which is all too typical of publically funded operations.

I get that Britain being described as"the sick man of Europe" is before most people on this forum were working age, and that things feel as if they are going badly wrong at the moment. But be careful what you wish for!

@Imdunfer , I agree with your analysis, mostly. There are bits of the economy that cling on to outdated technologies, like fax machines, that should have been retired 20 years ago. But the fax machine remains a very useful device even now. Identity verification is the starter. The ability to transfer an image via alternative analogue methods is a significant brake on criminality, as long as folk are educated to ask for such proofs.

I don't disagree but that's not the case on Northern Rail. They are the only train company which uses them. Aslef have agreed a deal with all the others and say they are ready to agree a deal with Northern.

What they mean is that they are ready for their train drivers to be paid more money to use a method of communication which will be easier for them, more effective for the company and increase reliability of the service.

I can't believe how many people on here seem to confuse Socialism with Communism!

This is the definition of socialism from AI:
"Socialism is an economic and political system where the means of production—such as factories, resources, and services—are owned or regulated by the community, often through a democratically elected government. Its primary goal is to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth, ensuring access to basic necessities like healthcare, education, and housing. Socialism allows for individual contribution to be rewarded, meaning people are compensated based on their work or effort, and it can coexist with a capitalist framework through social reforms and public sector intervention"
What's not to like? Many of the UK institutions and systems are socialist in nature - NHS, Regulated industries (water, rail, airports...), social housing, state schools, subsidised childcare, employment and sickness benefits etc.

Yes, socialism is a dirty word in the US but I think it's what Europeans call civilisation..

Excellent post.

That definition doesn’t mention anything about the role of the state?

Having an NHS etc doesn’t mean socialism. North Korea is more likely to take that description.

The biggest challenge to debating OP on the pros and cons of socialism, is defining what exactly is socialism?

Its impossible to debate when different people have different definitions of what socialism is?

Here for example is the Wikipedia's definition, which differs from the PP's definition:

Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equal distribution of wealth and resources. It emphasizes cooperation over competition, with essential industries often controlled by the state or worker cooperatives to serve public good rather than private profit.

Core Characteristics of Socialism:

Social Ownership: Means of production (factories, mines, utilities) are owned by the public, collective, or state rather than individuals.
Equality Focus: The primary goal is reducing inequalities in wealth and power.
Economic Planning: Often involves central planning or government intervention to manage resources and production.
Distribution: Resources are distributed according to collective need.

to serve public good rather than private profit.

The very wording suggests that both cannot be true at the same time.

Which completely ignores the role of profit in driving innovation and efficiency, allowing for investment, and allocating resources.

And ignores basic human nature where progress is made by competition and where equality focussed pay scales remove incentives to perform.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Socialism is a fantastic wonderful idea, it's just that it doesn't work in practice with human nature.

There is another angle to it.

Social Ownership: Means of production (factories, mines, utilities) are owned by the public, collective, or state rather than individuals.
Equality Focus: The primary goal is reducing inequalities in wealth and power.
Economic Planning: Often involves central planning or government intervention to manage resources and production.
Distribution: Resources are distributed according to collective need.

What social ownership actually means? There are individuals who would need to manage these assets. As soon as one group has access to assets/wealth there is a risk of corruption. To a point it was almost inbuilt feature in USSR and all socialist states.
Resources are distributes according to collective need - again, it's not AI which makes decisions about needs, it's individuals. And the same point about corruption applies.
Economic planning involves central planning or government intervention - means losing speed and agility and innovation.

There is a reason why socialism has never been successful.

Agree with you. But even socialists try very hard to give their kids a helping hand. There is a regular poster, who is determinedly socialist, who acknowledged that she and her partner have given their child a house, or a significant chunk of one, because in our currently very insecure world, that is the best thing a parent can do while youth earnings and employment are precarious. We have done the same, but in 10 or 20 years, we may have provided the foundation for a social rebuild.

The financial security to gift financial security to the next generation is the inheritocracy. As a boomer, it didn't happen for me. I got £400 from one GP and £3k from another... a garden table and a nice holiday in Canada. But I spent my most productive years in a growth economy.

My quibble is that I don't really believe that the current Government understand how to grow an economy. They have views on making life safe, and supporting the unsuccessful, but they are not interested in making or incentivising successful people to do even better.

That's the flaw with say a 100% inheritance tax. Many people are more motivated to increase their income / wealth in order to provide security for their children than they are to increase their income/ wealth to spend it on themselves. From an economics perspective that is illogical but from a parental perspective perfectly logical.

If you have a 100% inheritance tax, all that will happen is a rush to splurge the money before you die on holidays etc rather than say use it invest in and to grow the family business.

Completely agree.

It wouldn't be that bad if people were going to just splurging it, there would be a flow of money back to economy. I think people will just stop working when they have enough to maintain their lifestyle plus some extra for care.

But if the money was splurged would it be a productive flow of money back to the economy.

A lot might be spent on say holidays that would benefit other countries or on cars etc. Whereas if the money wasn't splurged and invested in say new machinery for a family business then this would create more jobs, more revenue and more tax.

You are completely full of shit and understand nothing about what life was like in the 70s.

I revised for my A levels in a library lit by candles, because of the three day week.

The 70s were so bright and vibrant culturally, because everyone was poor, and wanted more.

With Maggie Thatcher in the chair, it tipped over into more people doing better, as long as you were not in manufacturing or steel (my SF hated her, and he OWNED a high tech steel company) based on the insight that people work a lot harder for themselves than for the system.

Hence the sale of council houses, which the councils couldn't afford to to repair much less improve. So they were sold. And they were bought by their occupants at pennies on the pound, who did the upgrades that were required to bring them up to decent condition. Once they became owners, they thought like capitalists.

It's a very unpopular opinion here, but capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than socialism. It always will, because people will bust a gut for themselves and their family, if there's a sensible/plausible path set out for them to follow.

At this point, after that post, I feel I should beat my chest and declare "I am a Tory".

basically this

@Papyrophile, hear, empathetically, hear!

Apologies, here, empathetically here! But I am listening.

FFS @Sillycake , big companies don't create jobs. And they don't deliver a nice society, or anything new. I've had AMazon Prime since it launched, and it's great value for me, because my retail environment is otherwise shit. A few years ago, a stroll down my town was enjoyable and visually engaging. Now, it's charity shops (I like them, donate), Boots and barbers (Turkish- or thereabouts-- money laundering) but there is also one very upmarket, expensive clothes shop. Realistically you would say it's a fail, but the owner prospers and has traded through good times and bad. Two owners have known that professional women buy clothes they like and find comfortable to wear that simultaneously declare professional status even before they say anything.