top of page

The Socialism Paradox



I can admit it, the idea of socialism is appealing, however the application of it always ends in disaster.


The reason?


People ultimately do not want to share what they produce, especially if they think they are working harder, smarter, faster, or in any way better than those around them.


Top producers, thinkers, creators, or workers will not take the same remuneration for their skills / contributions as everyone else, and the definitely will not take less.

 
 

You see, the ultimate problem with socialism is that it attempts to simply deny human greed altogether rather than deal with it or turn it into a positive force for society (this is ultimately what Capitalism does).


Humanity, by in large, groups together for self preservation, not because of a desire to see one another ascend. In truth, we are too often only interested in someone's ascension if it benefits us in some way (see Taylor Swift becoming a billionaire for a prime example).


Yet as much as someone may not like this reality, it does not mean that it is not reality.


Here are some bottom line political truths that have been proven throughout thousands of years of human history:


  • What you tax you get less of,

  • When you take from someone that is all you will ever get.

  • When the government takes from someone more than they are willing to give, that person will protect what they have left ferociously.


It is these truths that keep proving over and over again why socialism does not, and cannot, work. All it takes is one or two people in a society who refuse to work to muck up the entire system. Once people feel like they are being taken advantage of, they begin to fall into one of the above three categories, and now they are just going to do less, give less, and work less, to ensure that they are not contributing more than anyone else is.


Again, you may not like it, but that does not make it untrue. Throughout history, countries who have continuously attempted to embrace a collectivist economic system have fallen victim to the pictured cycle again and again:


  • They begin by taking from the producers, or the "rich"

  • They then cannot replicate the production because those people refuse to contribute and others cannot accomplish what they did.

  • Once the supply that was stolen begins to dwindle, and austerity measures come into play, the "people" begin to get angry and feel like they are being taken advantage of again.

  • They then will look at the people who have benefited from the socialist system (because someone ALWAYS ends up with more), and now you have another revolt against those producers or "rich."

  • Go back to the top as society gets less and less "rich" every turn of the cycle.


Even the early American colonists found this out the hard way. They attempted to use Acts 2 (from the Bible) as a system of governance and evenly distribute everything that was produced by the colony. The result?


They were starving and poor because no one wanted to work any harder than anyone else. As soon as they switched to a system that let everyone keep what they produced, and trade and barter with one another for their "extra," the colony flourished and productivity exploded by percentage.


Why is that?


Because people found it to be fair.


Life itself is unfair. Not everyone is the same. Some are more talented and some are less.


Some are hard workers and some just like to coast and take it easy.


Some are driven to be successful and some are just happy to let life happen.


Neither is wrong, until you start taking from one to support the other.


Now it should be pointed out, even though it should not need to be, that things like mental disabilities or physical disabilities that render a person completely unable to work ANY form of job or productive capacity are not included in this. Unless a person is beyond callused by government overreach, even the most ardent supporter of personal property rights accepts this. I have yet to find one who does not and this is my circle.


Which brings us to how this impacts us as Americans.


The more social programs you install, the more people who are not participants in them will feel like they are being taken advantage of. The more they feel taken advantage of, the less they will voluntarily contribute (volunteer hours, charitable giving, et al). Once that group becomes large enough, you will have entire sectors of society voting for people who vow to dismantle those programs. This is where the infighting really begins, and it is now to a point where we have very little left that we do not fight about.


I have PURPOSELY not touched the moral/social implications of things. I have only dealt with the simple economic and political. Once you add the moral dimension into the equation, things become far less clear and far more combative. This article is attempting to deal in the facts surrounding the economic systems ideals only.


In the end, taking from producers to give to non-producers always begins a cycle of downward spiral.


The only real question is are we too late in that cycle for it to be broken?

439 views0 comments

Comentários


bottom of page