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?

Socialists think that your money really belongs to the State and they decide how much of it you are allowed to keep and also what you are allowed to do with the money you are allowed to keep. They will discourage you spending it on something they disapprove of (private schooling for example).

Conservatives (real Conservatives not the fake ones we have had of late) believe that your money is your own and that you can decide how you spend it. And the State decides how much of it to take in tax.

This. I cant believe anyone thinks it is viable. You need to reward effort. People are not equal and never can be. Thats reality.

Well, thats quite a contradictory answer.

We live under a "Capitalist" system, yet people, according to your own exp, get the same for doing very little.

We have very low productivity, much lower than so called socialist countries in Europe.

But of course, Socialism like Capitalism, has many flavours but the idea Capitalism is the answer, is wrong... and neither is capitalism.

On why Socialism is viewed poorly, thats funny, the right wing media (and plenty on here) were screaming in anger that Reeves wasn't going to help the better off with energy support, clearly a "socialist" policy!

The Capitalists want the benefits of socialism, when they get the money ie SENDs Free Child Care, free prescriptions, tax credits, tax breaks for Private education etc etc but moan like XXXX when someone else get help instead.

What's wrong with having resilience and being nice to people?

When did we last have a "Real" Conservative Govt?

"Your money is your own and you decide how to spend it..."

How does that work when i hit a pot hole? Can't afford PHI? Wait 72hrs in AE for a bed?

Surely not providing decent public services is the very essence of telling you how to spend your own money......

Where would you draw the line? would reducing Council Tax and removing waste collection be acceptable?

We would have to take our rubbish to the local tip (and then pay to dispose of it) those without a car, would rely on their neighbours.

You're right, all the suffering in those poor Nordic countries is so sad.

Well capitalism isn't working, communism doesn't work, maybe none of it works.

Although id rather be in a country that doesn't reward billionaires. In my opinion they aren't working hard which is why I think capitalism doesn't work.

You're not answering my point though. Money to repair potholes comes from tax in whatever form. I'm not arguing against taxation obviously, as I said in my post.

Im simply pointing out the different approach that socialists take to other people's money. They seem to feel some sort of entitlement to it and have opinions as to how someone spends their own money. You see it all over MN. Its unfair if you are rich, tax the people who contribute most more, no non state education, no one should be able to inherit from their parents. Etc. Obviously it just means people won't bother to work hard if their money is swoped from them and not spent on potholes but instead mainly transferred to those that often don't work hard.

That's such an odd take. Billionaires don't work hard. Which ones are you thinking of?

I like Socialism in theory but not as much in reality. Although I strongly agree with socialised healthcare and higher education because I believe governments should be responsible for taking care of the people and educating them. A healthy and educated society is more viable economically. But I hate the jealousy that socialism breeds.

I think the point is not that state run education and health care is undesirable. More that if you decide to opt out and spend your own money to pay for your own health care and education rather than using state provision, a socialist usually disapproves. Even though you might be saving tax payers money. That's the contradiction. Ideology over practicality every time.

That is utter bullshit. I currently have a nice little office job where I get to sit in a comfortable seat all day and go home promptly at 5pm, I get paid 50% more than when I was standing and lugging heavy boxes around all day in retail!

The USA is directly responsible for Cubas impoverishment.

It's just an example of what socialism on a small scale looks like.

In that example, in a capitalist society you are free to take your hard work and move it elsewhere.

Not all workplaces reward laziness.

In a socialist society you can't simply move jobs, or go it alone; you'd need to emigrate to find your reward.

This thread does seem to consider someone who does physical work as more valuable than someone who doesn't do physical work.

The Nordic countries are not socialist. They are capitalist countries with more redistribution than we have here. There are reasons why this works well there (lots of natural resources making them wealthy, cohesive high trust cultures etc)

Capitalism does not award hard work - it exploits people and the environment.

And Norway for example has a tiny population as well as those great natural resources (like oil, Ed Milliband..) which helps.

When did we last have a Real Conservative Govt? that was a specific question to your post.

I get your point, i hear it all the time... until that person needs something and it isn't there.

Once elected, ALL govts do as they will, tax and spend as they want too.... this idea, that we should have more of our money to spend as we wish, sounds great in theory, its a disaster in practice.

Only really benefits the very wealthy who can buy their way out.

What your describing is "entitlement" not socialism, in my experience, the biggest takers are the better off, demand Triple Lock, demand WFP, demand free childcare (even though they earn 100k)

..or BTL LLs who want little or no regulation so they can maximise profits, often by renting to people on Housing Benefit..... this is where the real transfer of wealth takes place.

Lol an oil/gas industry they didn't sell off in the name of "Capitalism" to give tax cuts to the super rich.
Instead Norway retains much of the profit.... for the state.

Meanwhile the less well off had cuts to income tax too BUT saw huge rises in so called indirect taxation, so overall tax burden for the plebs went up, whilst real terms wages fell....

I have lived in a socialist country. It isn't for everyone. It is repressive and controlling which some people genuinely like as they like to be dependent on the state and have their choices taken away from them. Other people hate it and leave for countries where they can have more autonomy over their lives. You have to have a huge amount of faith in governments and very little faith in yourself to find socialism appealing. My overall feeling is that it makes life worse for everyone but appeals enormously to people who worry that they are somehow missing out or failing in a more merit based world.

I would say they are socialist countries with less capitalism than we have here. And that they have a wealthy, cohesive high trust culture BECAUSE of the socialism.

That's simply not true is it. Capitalism was built on slavery, indenture and widesptead exploitation for a start and exploitation continues to be baked in Rewards are not measured by how hard you work but by the perceived value a worker adds. Making money is valued more than than many jobs where people work ery hard indeed, just for an example. And you have completely discounted inherited wealth and wealth achieved through investment and luck on the global markets. Huge rewards for little to no work at all.

When did Norway acquire Ed Miliband? And if he is a helpful natural resource, why didn't we make better use of him before they got hold of him?

Oh I see. Well I think we haven't had one for a long time. Which is probably why we are in the trouble we are in now.

I think I am talking about socialism actually. It's a mind set. And of course in extremis, when it starts toppling over to communism, there's no such thing as private property at all. The government feels it can just help itself to other people's money in order to cure some sort of ailment in society which under their ideology they object to. For example since the VAT on school fees, taxpayer will now be spending more on education than the VAT will raise (due to school closures, increased need for state funded SEN support, people leaving schools or not going private which they would otherwise have done etc), which will have to come out of increased taxation on the rest of us. I don't want to get bogged down by the rights and wrongs of private education but the VAT has been added for ideological not practical reasons. Because socialists disapprove of non state education.

Ironically most of the "socialists" I know are the richest people I know due to having inherited wealth, don't work much and who also send their kids to private school. So the ideology is not so strong when it comes to their own lives, just the lives of other taxpayers. The strivers and hard workers that I know are not usually socialists however. I don't know what that says about socialists but it's just something I've noticed.