Hi folks. Is socialism against human nature? Well, this claim is often being made and I don’t agree. I don’t think socialism is against human nature per se. The reason why socialism doesn’t work and has never worked is because the economics is incorrect, the math just doesn’t add up. It’s not that socialism isn’t in favour of human nature; it’s that socialism just doesn’t work. Socialists always obsess over income inequality and the fact that some small portion of the population is richer than the rest, but they don’t care about the fact that most people are well off and better off today compared to the past. If what the socialists said was true, then we who don’t belong to the upper 1% would be poorer today that our counterparts 100 years ago, but we’re not. There are even more people around today than 100 years ago, yet we’re still richer than the bottom % a hundred years ago, and that’s because the economy isn’t a zero-sum game. Sure, some people are very wealthy, but most people are wealthier than their counterparts in the past. The economy isn’t about some Darwinian zero sum competition, where one big guy wins it all and everyone else loses, and again had that been the case we would all be poorer today than people in the past. This whole progress maxim that is espoused by most leftist wouldn't be possible without capitalism and economic growth, and in fact we’d be regressing not progressing, since the finite resources would be consumed and hoard away, and eventually we’d all starve to death, but then again none of that has happened, because socialisms fundamental premise is just not true: the economy isn’t a zero sum game and to succeed in capitalism you actually have to create wealth and add real value to the world, and as you do that you also grow the economy and with that you grow the living standard of everyone, not only yourself. The fact that people are motivated by selfishness or compassion doesn't matter; capitalism works whether the business man is selfish or compassionate, because capitalism doesn't care what you think about it or how you think about other people. Socialism on the other hand doesn't work regardless of people’s ultimate intentions, because socialism doesn't add up from a mathematical perspective, since the entire thing is predicated on a zero sum game, and that just means that wherever Socialism is implemented, the economy slowly dies and people just become poorer and poorer, because no new resources, no new values, are being created or added to the economy. In a sense, socialism is fairly straight forward: people that like socialism are just jealous and they want to to also be jealous and feel hatred in your heart for those that are more successful, instead of you going out and actually creating more value and more growth for yourself. Again your intention doesn't matter, because capitalism will take care of everything regardless if you’re a self-centered narcissist or a all people loving socialist, because capitalism isn’t predicated on your intentions, which is why it continues to endure, and socialism continues to fail. You’ll never get any kind of progress, technological progress, without capitalism and freedom of trade and exchange, and that’s not only because you remove the profit incentive, that’s actually primarily because you remove the whole framework, the whole reason why the economy can grow in the first place. God, people really need a stronger education when it comes to basic economy and how the world actually works, because people constantly fall victim to the tactics of socialists and nationalists, and that’s because they actually pray on your human nature. See, the thing about socialism and to a lesser extent nationalism is that they are constructed from principles that are grounded to some extent in human nature, and as a result they can appeal in a way capitalism fails to do. Capitalism is much less grounded in any clearly good part of human nature, and as a result it’s easy to turn people off to it and have them embrace socialism instead, mostly because socialism just appeals to that seeming human nature of trying to help out your fellow man, but you’re actually not helping out your fellow man by implementing socialism; you’re just hurting yourself and other people. There are no societies in human history, at least not as far as I know, that have been able to completely eradicate poverty, because humans are different and some humans just suck at life, or they just suck at creating any value in the capitalist enterprise, and I also feel for them, but most of those people, if not all of them, won’t do any better under socialism, because they’re gonna have precisely the same problem under socialism; they can’t add value to the economy and that makes them poor. There were poor people in the Soviet Union and most of them either lived on the streets like poor people in the west, or they were put into mental institutions, but they weren’t any better off, I can assure you. Now, it might be that those people would make it better without civilization, but the most likely explanation is that poor people have a lot of issues, mental and sometimes physical and that prevents them from being able to actually earn a wage, and you can argue that those people should be protected and receive help from the state, but guess what: those states that can provide help to poor people are capitalist states, or they run capitalist economies. The modern day welfare-state is not a socialist product, it’s a capitalist product, and it wouldn't be possible without capitalism. Welfare has nothing to do with communism, or socialism for that matter: only liberal democracies have ever created or been able to create general welfare for the entire population. The Soviet Union didn’t have a welfare state, East Germany (The DDR) didn’t have a welfare state, and modern day red China doesn’t have a welfare state. So if you’re a member of the Labour Party or the Left-Party or some other socialist or pseduo-socialist party, remember that it wasn’t socialism that created the welfare state, and again not a single socialist country has ever created a welfare state, because the welfare state is essentially a capitalist construct. See, that’s another thing that’s great about capitalism: you can do a lot of things with it; you don’t always have to go laissez-faire with capitalism, even though that would create the most growth and the most wealth, and it would be the most free form of capitalism and I suppose the most true form as well. Heck, you can even go socialist under capitalism, because nobody’s going to stop you from organizing a cooperative, a trade union, or any other socialists alternative; a capitalist economy is entirely compatible with socialism, but most likely socialism will still fail because of the aforementioned reasons, but socialism is not banned or anything under capitalism, and if it banned then that’s not a very free capitalist economy and I would oppose it. Look, there are some valid critiques of capitalism and that’s where socialists excel: they’re very good at pointing out the flaws and the downsides with capitalism, but then they suck on the other hand, because they can never create a better alternative, at least they haven't so far. There are essentially two major categories of socialists: the first consists mostly of young people that don’t know better; and the second consists, ironically enough, of people that are very wealthy, and often these people have grown up in wealth created by someone else, and they don’t know anything else than just having everything served on a silver platter, and for these individuals it’s obviously easy to think that everyone should just have everything, because they don’t know better, but of course reality is not quite like that or it isn't that simple. I think most people cease being socialists because once they grow up and actually have to create their own wealth, they realize that socialism isn’t that funny; it’s always easier to redistribute someone else’s resources, but when you also have to give your wealth up, it might not be quite as funny anymore. Anyways, even Marx was in favour of capitalism: it's a very common misconception to think that because he was in favour of communism and thought capitalism was evil, he therefore wanted to immediately crush and destroy capitalism, but he believed that capitalism was a necessary prerequisite for communism. So, even according to Marx, capitalism was a necessity. Signing out.
Reginald Drax – August 21, 2025.
","postedDate":"den 20 augusti 2025"}