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?

yet the quality of threads on here prove garlics point about peoples debating

The media is owner by those with a lot to lose by socialism.
Unions are run by/for those with a lot to gain by socialism.
Why don't Unions run businesses by/for their members; a co-operative. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is.

Someone has to own the media though and the state doing so would be worse. There’d be no separation and complete control / power.

At least consumers can influence and a lot of media these days really is picking up on social media which is our views back to the public.

I think that's rather pompous and suggests you have rather a high opinion of your own debating skills.

Politics is always subjective.

i have a high opinion of other peoples quality of debating skills, especially when i use guides from oxford university on how to debate as the guides i then match others debating skills etc

politics is subjective i agree, but how people debate their points is a completely different kettle of fish

What "media" are you referring to and what are their viewing/readership figures? So we can judge the influence they may have on people's poor view of socialism. (Other than the common sense view that socialism doesn't work, which people don't need to find out from the "media" but just have to live through a Labour government).

Not sure I'm following you. But it sounds a wise if slightly disjointed sentence.

Ah I see you have added a bit. Still not much clearer but I will assume you are making an excellent point.

you need a form of socialism for society to survive , otherwise with capitalism you get the Victorian era type society

Not really. Capitalism doesn't mean that nothing is raised in tax or that there isn't a public sector or benefits system.

I actually think the overall quality of debating on here is quite poor, which is why Garlic’s point landed with me.

I often use Oxford University debate guides as a benchmark. When I compare the standard on Mumsnet threads to those guides, a lot of the discussions fall well short.

I completely agree that politics is subjective. But how people debate and defend their points is a completely different kettle of fish and on that front, many threads here don’t show particularly strong reasoning or structure.

no but if you want a more pure version of capitalism then theres very little taxes etc

a more pure capitalism for you all :

Imagine a UK where pure capitalism reigns – no NHS, no benefits, no minimum wage, no state schools or subsidies, just raw free markets, private everything, and the government limited to courts, police, and defence.

London and the southeast would probably boom as a hyper-competitive global finance and tech hub, with innovation exploding, new businesses springing up daily, and ambitious families able to get ahead through hard work, skills, and smart choices.

Wages for skilled workers might rise, private healthcare and education could become more efficient and cutting-edge for those who can afford them, and the "invisible hand" might drive down costs in competitive sectors over time. Philanthropy and family networks could step in for some safety nets, like in Victorian times, fostering a culture of self-reliance and entrepreneurship.

But for many mums juggling kids, bills, and jobs or no jobs, it would feel brutally harsh. Without universal benefits, families hit by illness, redundancy, disability, or simply low-skilled work in a de-industrialised north or Wales could face real destitution think long hours, no paid leave, kids in cheap private options or apprenticeships early, and healthcare only if you have insurance or savings.

Inequality would widen dramatically; the rich in gated communities with premium services, while others rely on patchy charity, food banks on steroids, or mutual aid that might not stretch far in a recession.

It might reward the talented and driven, creating more overall wealth eventually, but at the cost of huge anxiety, family stress, and a "sink or swim" society where vulnerability isn't cushioned.

Many would argue it's freer and more efficient, others that it's heartless and leaves too many children and families behind.

Would you thrive, or is the safety net worth the taxes?

In terms of "individual opinions are informed by people's varying knowledge and experience", you could say politics is subjective.

When subjective means "opinions entirely based on each person's own interests, without reference to wider influences or capacity to balance differing interests", it's personal opinion but it isn't politics.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. Not every opinion has merit.

Very true words, especially when their views are soundbites rather than full debate points

I think if you are judging political debates by using a university debating guide then you probably aren't entering into the spirit of things. MN is an inclusive site. Plenty of people who actually argue for a living contribute perfectly happily to political discussions and don't feel the need to point out faults other people's arguing styles. People who may not be as highly trained as you purport to be.

I fail to see that your own style particularly shines or is in any way persuasive but presumably that's my own personal failing.

"Not every opinion has merit"

Who judges what opinion has merit and what opinion doesn't, m'lud?

That's not actually true of course. We don't live in an anarchical society.

My personal debating style couldn’t convince the milkman never mind anyone on Mumsnet

Everyone claims to want democracy.

Everyone says they value open discussion, the exchange of ideas, the clash of perspectives.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: you cannot have a meaningful debate if the participants don’t actually know how to construct one.

A real debate isn’t just blurting out opinions or reacting emotionally to whatever was last said.

It requires structure clear claims, supporting evidence, logical sequencing, and the ability to engage with opposing arguments rather than ignore or caricature them.

Without that, what you get isn’t debate; it’s noise dressed up as participation.

We’ve reached a point where people want the feeling of debate without the discipline it demands.

They want to be heard, but not challenged. They want to respond, but not refine. And so conversations collapse into assertion versus assertion, with no mechanism for resolution or even understanding.

Democracy depends on debate but debate depends on competence.

Until more people learn how to actually build and sustain an argument, what we call “discussion” will continue to be little more than parallel monologues, occasionally colliding, rarely connecting.

That’s fine but you sound like eight year olds isn’t actually improving the debating quality either.

I think it’s fine if not everyone is close to Oxford level but just let people say stuff and counter that rather than say this.

a more pure form of capitalism is not anarchical , if the govt only controls the law, police and the military

"you need a form of socialism for society to survive , otherwise with capitalism you get the Victorian era type society"

I'm not 100% sure this is high skilled debating? I feel you may need to put your own house in order before you criticise others.

What is going to pay for the government and "the law, police and the military"

Taxes perhaps?

But you said there were very little taxes?

yes little taxs just enough to cover the costs of those essential services which the financial hub of london could easily cover

Ok I think at least one of your posts (22.00 perhaps?) may have been crafted by that great debater, Mr Chat GPT. Apologies for the delay in noticing. And thank you for your time.

i had to use it because you and quote could not understand my point so i made it better.

besides thank you for proving my point rather than engage in a debate you instead disengage because of a tool i used to assist with one of my passages ?

how democratic of you