The ultra rich have successfully convinced a lot of people that they, too, could become ultra rich some day - but there's no place for ultra rich under socialism.

Then further, a lot of people have been convinced that only the very very poor would be better off and everyone else would be worse off. That is of course also untrue.

The hate against socialism is the idea that someone who doesn't work as hard as you, gets the same benefits as you, and that's not fair.

Something like that could never work under capitalism. Everybody knows that rich people work extremely hard to be rich. I work hard, and I'll be rich some day too.

decades of red scare propaganda and purposefully sabotaging public education

IMHO remnants from the cold war indoctrination.

It is due to lobbying and astroturfing.

Simple as.

It's definitely not based in data, because that overwhelmingly shows massive economic and happiness growth happens in these states

To me the hate is quite simple to understand. Socialism means that the extremely rich will be worse off financially. The 1% have an unnatural love for money, and the idea of being less wealthy for the greater good is totally abhorrent to them.

For generations they've been able to demonise socialism using their disproportionate influence through the media, to the extent that the majority of the population now fear it.

We've really not moved on that far intellectually from the witch trials. People are collectively ignorant and fearful, and with the right nudges are easy to control to the point where they'll literally vote against their own good. They are the proverbial Turkeys voting for Christmas and I honestly don't know how we will ever get past it.

Probably US-Americans confusing anything that's not predatory capitalism with Russia and China.

People don't really like change.

Think about free public libraries. They're fairly popular, and not controversial outside of fringe libertarian types and assholes. People like that you can borrow books and other media for free. Usually there's a bit of a backlash if there's a movement to shut down libraries or limit their services.

Imagine if free public libraries didn't exist, and someone tried to invent them today. People would be having screaming fits about communism. It's stealing from the authors. it's ruining publishing. We don't need tax dollars for this when we have amazon. Blah blah blah.

It's the same with other things we could socialize. health care is a privatized nightmare. If we somehow got a public option in, eventually people would start reflexively defending it.

So what I'm saying is many people don't really have a set of internally consistent beliefs. They just don't like change.

Years of propaganda from oligarchs, their think tanks and their propaganda spreaders. This has been an attack for many decades but especially after WW2 during the red scare and then after 1970 when the Powell Memo was issued. That is the origin of all of our messes, including Reagan and Trump.

Many of the same right wing think tanks are from the same oligarchs from decades ago and/or their heirs. Think Timothy Mellon or Birch Society (Koch Brother father). Even then, there was “the business plot” where the oligarchs of the 1930s wanted fascism because of the threat FDR had to their wealth and power.

Actual five year old explanation:

Some people, who bake a birthday cake with their mom and dad, want the entire cake for themselves. If mom or dad take a piece anyway, they think that's not "sharing" but "stealing". Even though mom and dad helped bake the cake too. They think cake being taken from them is socialism.

long form:

1. When "socialism" started, it started in a BLOODY way. I mean, the Russian revolution, before that it was mostly just theory, but still "the poors" doing it, so that was ew for history writers. The Russian revolution itself did achieve some kind of no longer aristocratic system, but for many many people, the outcomes were not positive. There were some positive outcomes on average, literacy and food supply improved a lot over time. But we're talking about the negatives here. Then the whole stuff Stalin did and being in power for decades in a system that's supposed to be democratic didn't exactly improve the reputation. Don't forget that for a long time, world domination was the literal declared goal of the international communist party. They were legit "coming for you" because they were coming for everyone. So that's one whole topic covered.
2. Have you ever worked in a group project and someone didn't pull their weight? "The" argument against socialism is that that is going to be everyone. And then nothing gets done. But because society still does need some things to function, like food supply, electricity, etc. society will collapse, because nobody will do what's necessary. Because the mindset of people against socialism, is that external reward is always necessary for people to do things. If everyone has the same, unconditionally, there is no reward and no punishment. To finance the system anyway, the fear is that "socialism" would just tax everything or seize your property and redistribute it.

So when someone says "that's socialism", they fear that they will be robbed or killed or at least threatened. And to be fair, the thought of being robbed or harmed is scary.

People often confuse socialism with communism. The confusion is deliberate by a lot of right wing propaganda. When talking about socialism with Americans, you have to explain to them that the fire department is an example of socialism. As are other public services, like roads, police, libraries, and some utilities.

Of course in America, some people think profit is more important, so they are doing everything they can to privatize services. For example, in Texas they are slowly killing public education, and toll roads have taken over normal highway construction.

As I mentioned, people are being conned and scared of the word so that they will elect people will be replacing what remains of public services with private ones.

Conservative reactionaries since the French Thermidor Reaction opposed it, believing communalism and eventually socialism undermines their existing hierarchical, feudal system. Stalin also did not help matters at all.

Propaganda.

People don't know what socialism actually means because of propaganda...

you can ask someone who is against "socialism" whether they like it by talking about elements of it without explicitly mentioning the word "socialism" and they will probably agree with it.

Well, over here hard-line socialism is tied directly to Soviet attempts of taking away our independence through military force after us being occupied for well over a thousand years.

So yeah, a hard sell. But we have softer socialist policies these days, but I don't see a shift towards a fully socialist system.

Those who are educated on the matter and oppose socialism do so because of a belief that continuing high-intensity development of the economy is preferable, for one reason or another.

Many of us would argue that, with the economy in developed countries at the point where everyone could very easily be guaranteed a good quality of life without further improvements, and that, in fact, further improvements at this point are more likely to come from the cultural and technological development enabled by a more equal and less labor-intensive society, capitalism has overstayed its welcome.

Socialism threatens capitalists -> Capitalists spend money in media and politics to ensure support for capitalism by spreading fear about socialism -> People are scared of socialism.

It's really that simple honestly. I generally hate oversimplifications but there's not that much more to it

The people who hate it are those who think themselves better than their peers. They think they deserve more than their peers, and that socialism transfers their superior effort to the benefit of their inferiors.

They see socialism not as everyone helping everyone, but as they, the successful being forced to support them, the lazy.

If you don’t define it, lots of things can be wrong with it. Or right.

Which is why almost no one defines it.

The most common gripe I hear is that because not all labor is similar[EG: Healthcare vs Mining] there is no easy way to make sure that people are putting in the same value into the system. For people that already mistakenly believe there is a large group of "lazy immigrants" draining resources in the current system, this is a deal breaker. The internal logic isn't too much to swallow its just a hurdle to get people to sit long enough to hear the answer. They would rather fight over the crumbs than share the whole because somehow thats more "fair".

It's mostly thanks to USA propaganda and the whole "Red Scare" that began in the 1950s

I mean doesn't it mean a system where the people take care of themselves and neighbors?

Not really, the system is supposed to be about a government and economy that cares about the well being of its people first, such that several wealth distribution methods would be applied to ensure minimal inequality.

Ask a typical American what they hate about socialism and they will perfectly describe capitalism

The rich don't want equality. They need people to be suffering and in dire want, so they have exploitable people to profit from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

It's pretty much all US propaganda that makes people hate socialism

Because some of the worst dictators of all time said they were communist and socialist, despite dictatorship being fundamentally antithetical to both.

Then a bunch of idiots watched a dictatorship, the USSR, burn up their economy with a space and arms race, so now they think socialism kills economic progress. It wasn't that the USSR didn't invest properly in the populace, or infrastructure, or that they were fundamentally a kleptocracy with a massive military, it's that they called themselves socialist. That's what killed them.

Socialism is great as a concept, basically means putting people before capital. Capitalism is the reverse. Even the staunchest capitalist countries practice socialism to some degree. Raw capitalism would be hell.

It’s the same with communism, where the workers were supposed to own the means of production, which means money wouldn’t gravitate around a few ones. Even the staunchest communist countries didn’t practice real communism, deforming it into feudalism.

TL;DR: Socialism is a great concept, just consider that everything we hear about it comes from a culture ruled by capitalists.

I think the general idea of those against it is that they assume it is zero sum. Meaning, for everyone to be taken care of, the person must lose or have less.

Every politically charged term ends up having highly disputed definitions, but I think most of those will acknowledge that the term has way more baggage than just the idea of taking care of yourselves and neighbors.

From Wikipedia:

Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.

It represents a whole set of beliefs about how the world works, in addition to political goals. Someone might broadly agree with the idea that people should be taken care of, but have strong objections about the specifics. One of those beliefs that I'll object to is the idea that just about everything should be understood as being about class conflict; I don't think that's always accurate.

It's propaganda. The reality is that much of our system is already Socialized. In fact, some of the best stuff in our society is Socialist.

Schools, libraries, fire departments, police, military, parks, roads, etc. are all Socialist concepts at their foundation.

Fire Departments used to work by subscription. A building owner would pay a local fire brigade for protection. He would get a small cast iron badge that he'd place next to his doorway. If a building caught fire, the fire brigade would show up, and if there was a a "fire mark," they'd fight the fire. If there wasn't a fire mark, they'd let it burn down. That is a strictly Capitalist concept.

It was eventually decided that public tax money would be used to protect EVERYBODY from fire, which is a Socialist concept. The old subscription-based fire brigade concept evolved into the predatory insurance industry, a Capitalist concept which has been preying upon us ever since.

Like most political philosophies, Socialism has its positives and negatives. Any political philosophy, taken to its most extreme ends, would be a disaster. The best governments take the most successful parts of any philosophy, and rejects the bad parts. A pure Democratic/Republican/Socialist government would be terrible, but a combination of the best elements, could be really great.

MAGA is not a legitimate political philosophy. it's core tenets include treason, corruption, racism, bigotry, violence, pedophilia, misogyny, intolerance, ignorance, and incompetence. MAGA is a criminal enterprise disguising itself as a legitimate political movement, and it's influence must be fully purged from our government and our society.

The vast majority of the hate for socialism is decades long propaganda and indoctrination, which is mostly false. Socialism is a threat to the wealthy, so they programmed people to hate it.

With socialism or socialism-like policies, the general population gets more, at the expense of the wealthy elites who would get less. The wealthy control or lobby or have a say in our education system, media, entertainment, etc.

There are various kinds of socialism. Some "take care of themselves and neighbors" & some merely claim to.

One of the merely claims types is authoritarian socialism, which includes Marxism–Leninism.

Authoritarian socialism, or socialism from above, is an economic and political system supporting some form of socialist economics while rejecting political pluralism. As a term, it represents a set of economic-political systems describing themselves as "socialist" and rejecting the liberal-democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, and freedom of expression, either due to fear of counter-revolution or as a means to socialist ends.

That ideology does not respect & protect inherent individual rights & liberties recognized since the Enlightenment. Authoritarian socialism is hated for abusing human rights, and it's often incorrectly assumed that all socialism is authoritarian. That explains the hatred.

Kinds of socialism that respect & protect human rights do exist, however, and they have a better claim to a system of self & mutual care. There's little reason to hate those.

ELI5

People dislike socialism because they often feel like their hard work and effort does not get fairly rewarded. Why would you work your whole life away to become a doctor and save lives when someone else wastes their time lost in vice.

Well you're 5 you piece of shit and your efforts at not pissing the bed have been pretty minimal at best. But do you still eat? Do you have a roof and a bed to piss all over? Who cleans that mess every time? People hate socialism because it sucks to be the provider. It also sucks to suffer. And in life we often forget this. We forget it takes all of us. We forget what it is to be helpless. We forget those who provided for us. And we get angry when we have to provide for others when we feel so left out of the party.

In short dont forget. Don't forget what you have been given and don't forget to share. Dumb kids.

I think it’s fear. People fear that their country doesn’t produce enough and isn’t wealthy enough to support an army that is capable enough to keep any real or imagined enemies at bay. Add a good amount of corruption and propaganda to it, and you get a perpetual cycle where this fear needs continuous fuelling.

The worst part of it is that the fear isn’t entirely unjustified. As the Ukraine war shows, predators will try to pray on the weak, and Europe has been complacent about its own defence.

That doesn’t mean I think capitalism is the answer of course, but it is a horribly delicate balancing act to consider all concerns.

The people who own, run, operate and manage all information systems from education, news services to schools are all or mostly private corporations, businesses or wealthy benefactors who all base their wealth on capitalism. So they spend all their time and energy using the services and organizations they control to convince everyone everywhere that capitalism is the only option and that socialism in any form is not good or does not work or is not practical.

Only thing I have against it is the air-headed, simple-minded take of most on lemmy. I've asked a dozen times how socialism stops money from funneling to the top and into the hands of a few. Never once got an answer. Look in this thread right now! There's not one real definition, just the usual capitalism bad, socialism good, take.

Best government and economic system I've seen in human history is a capitalist economic model with serious guard rails and "socialism" for the government. I put socialism in quotes because the word means to lemmings whatever they want it to mean, so the term is wishy washy.

If everyone does better, then you're doing worse by comparison.

I want 10% unemployment and 0% interest rates. That's the magic formula where I can sexually harass my au pair and she has no choice but to put up with it.