Perspectives
October 14, 2024 | By Michael Lucas
Policy Issues
Economy

Why Are There Socialists?

Human beings are naturally inclined toward socialism. We are hard-wired to care for our friends and family by virtue of our empathy and benevolence. At the same time, we are also inclined toward envy and hubris.

Why Are There Socialists?

Human beings are naturally inclined toward socialism. We are hard-wired to care for our friends and family by virtue of our empathy and benevolence. At the same time, we are also inclined toward envy and hubris.

Ultimately the existence of and tendency toward socialism is a product of human nature. All of us are socialists to some extent, particularly within a family setting. This is definitely a beneficial aspect of our nature, but it must be admitted that too much of a good thing can quickly become bad, and that some aspects of our nature are not conducive to creating what most people would consider a good society: a society where freedom, justice, prosperity and happiness are maximized to the fullest extent possible.

Before getting into the particular reasons for why socialism exists and continues to garner so much support, consider the following quote by H.L. Mencken to prime you for the discussion that follows:

    

The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.

––H.L. Mencken

  

Envy and Hubris

The ideas of socialism go back thousands of years; at least to the time of Plato, who famously advocated for socialism (communism, specifically) in his legendary book The Republic. Plato's ideal republic consisted of two classes of people: the wise, "philosopher-kings" who'd govern the polis (ancient Greek for 'city'), and those who were fit only to be governed.

On the other hand, Plato's student, Aristotle, is history's earliest "capitalist," so to speak. Aristotle had many fundamental disagreements with his teacher and in this particular case, Aristotle came down decidedly in favor of a polis with mostly decentralized decision-making and private, as opposed to communal property. A helpful way of characterizing the critical divergence between these two great men is to understand that Plato was an idealist, whereas Aristotle was a realist.

  

  

Plato thinks that physical reality is a less-than-perfect imitation or reflection of what is perfect––his so-called "forms" or Platonic ideals. For Plato, then, perfection is attained by more closely imitating these ideal forms. With respect to society and government, Plato's perfect society is one which is orderly. For him, orderliness is created by implementing thoughtful, well-crafted plans; and those who are wise are capable of such thoughtful planning. Therefore, the wise should rule the polis.

Naturally, Aristotle's realism leads him to oppose his teacher's view. While certainly not an anarchist, Aristotle believed that a more decentralized society is preferable to Plato's republic. Aristotle was skeptical of man attaining "perfection," and often wrote about the inefficiency, bitterness and envy that emerge due to communal property schemes.

Aristotle believed that man is both a rational and emotional animal. And as these are aspects of his nature, they cannot be gotten rid of. This, here, is the realism that Aristotle represents: there are certain things which cannot be changed or controlled, so the best course of action is to create a situation where man's nature is allowed to express itself while also preserving and promoting human happiness. Communal property, he explains, fails to accomplish this, and Plato's belief that he could usher in his republic, is regarded by Aristotle as naive:

  

Happiness also requires external goods in addition, as we said; for it is impossible, or at least not easy, to play a noble part unless furnished with the necessary equipment...

People pay most attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common...

In general, living together and sharing in common in all human matters is difficult, and most of all these sorts of things [communal ownership]...

It is a fact of common observation that those who own common property, and share in its management, are far more at variance with one another than those who have property separately...

When everyone has his own separate sphere of interest, there will not be the same ground for quarrels...

––Aristotle

  

So property is better cared for when it is privately owned. If you know that others have equal rights to a piece of property, an incentive is created to overuse and destroy the property. This is what is known as The Tragedy of the Commons, a problem which was expounded on at length by Elinor Ostrom. The reasoning is simple: the benefits that stem from a piece of property can be captured by one person, but the cost of using a piece of property is disbursed among everyone. In other words, since anyone can use the property as much as they want, everyone uses it as much as possible before the benefits dry up. At the same time, there is no incentive to improve or maintain the property since any benefit from improving it can be captured by someone else. Consequently, the property is destroyed, and someone inevitably derives more benefit from the property than anyone else. In a communal setting everyone aims to acquire as much benefit from the property as possible, but when someone else winds up benefiting more than others, the "losers" feel that the benefits ought to have been shared equally. This leads to envy.

Aristotle also explains that private ownership is conducive to preventing disagreement and hostility. If you and your neighbor disagree on how a plot of land ought to be used, but each of you has an equal right to it, one of you will inevitably be upset. This leads to resentment and hostility because one person's mistakes affect others who have no way of preventing it.

This contrast between Plato and Aristotle demonstrates the first reason for human beings' tendency toward socialism: man is often envious and hubristic, and frequently overestimates his ability to remake the world. 

A common idea among those who wish to change the world is that if they were king for a day they could get rid of all the bad stuff, mandate all the good stuff, and then sit back and watch their utopia emerge.

For these folks, their first mistake is thinking that they know what is good and what is bad. Their second mistake is thinking that their plans will do what they intend them to do. And their third mistake is thinking that their actions will garner no re-action from their subjects. 

F.A. Hayek described this phenomenon perfectly when he said: "The curious task of economics is to describe to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Hayek then aptly termed this phenomenon "The Fatal Conceit": the mistaken belief that the world can be remade according to our wishes (click here to read the excerpt).

But the fact of the matter is, human beings are autonomous beings who choose and act in their self-interest. As Adam Smith said, they are not "pieces on a chessboard" who can move and be moved in only a few predefined ways. Human beings react to their environment and behave unpredictably, and no amount of control or tinkering can make them other than what they are––free and self-interested human beings.

Unfortunately, intellectuals, politicians and others in positions of authority or power tend to imagine that because of their intelligence or status that they are immune from making mistakes: "These people over here are incompetent because they don't understand this. But I do. So if I were in charge, I could fix this problem." Yet Hayek, a Nobel Laureate who spent a lifetime embroiled in politics and the academic circles of both the natural and social sciences, shows that this view is a conceit––and a fatal one at that...

   


*Watch F.A. Hayek explain The Fatal Conceit in his interview with William F. Buckley.*

Empathy and Benevolence

How vice leads to socialism is almost so obvious that it hardly warrants mentioning. But man is both bad and good; vicious and virtuous. The good qualities of man––as well as the bad––play a role in our tendency toward socialism. That these good and beneficent qualities can lead to something bad or undesirable, however, is not at all paradoxical. What is good and virtuous is only so so long as the behaviors which we regard as good are properly applied. For example, feeling and expressing outrage when someone has suffered an injustice is virtuous––that's called being even-tempered––but to lash out at someone who does not deserve your scorn is wrath.

The same sort of thing applies to empathy and benevolence. Empathy is an important emotion that generates acts of goodwill and charity. It allows us to care for other people who are not us, but who are like us and who could be us. It leads to aiding those who have suffered some misfortune and prompts us to correct perceived injustices––even when we are under no obligation to do so. Its result is friendliness, hospitality, neighborliness and unity. As good as these things are, empathy can go too far and often does.

A man or woman who commits a crime of passion should be sympathized with, but to empathize with them too much could lead to an injustice––letting a murderer walk free. This sort of excessive empathy is incredibly common today, particularly with regard to District Attorneys and other politicians who release violent criminals on bail, only for them to victimize more people while free. More and more frequently empathy results in people empathizing too much, and giving to others more than they deserve.

A prescient example of this would be the way in which many states and cities treat their homeless populations. In San Francisco, both the state and the city offer generous welfare packages to the homeless. No doubt the people of San Francisco earnestly wish to help the homeless lead happy and productive lives. But instead of reducing or eliminating homelessness, San Francisco's homeless population has continued to increase and has created a permanent class of homeless people––more than 8,000 at any given time according to SF's 2024 PIT Count. San Franciscans and others, therefore, must ask whether their empathy is actually helpful to those who receive their "help?" Whether the feeling of doing good is more important than doing good?

While a chronic gambler may very well "need" money to get himself out of debt, empathizing with his situation and lending him cash will only worsen his situation since he's guaranteed to lose it on the next horse race. When empathy and benevolence are applied indiscriminately they lead to what we would all consider "bad" outcomes because they create a moral hazard. A moral hazard is when people engage in riskier behaviors because the cost of those behaviors are not born by the person engaging in the behavior. This results in people doing what is not in their best interest because the costs and benefits of a decision have been artificially manipulated.

Perpetual welfare enrollment is another example of this in that welfare recipients' conditions for enrollment and disenrollment are often so lax that recipients can continue to receive benefits forever. Additionally, they impose incentives to remain on welfare by penalizing recipients who find gainful employment.

  

"We Are All Socialists Now"

Not only are we all socialists now, but we've always been socialists. Every one of us is a socialist in our private life when it comes to family and friends, and this is properly understood to be a good thing (within reason). When it comes to men and women, husbands and wives are simultaneously capitalists and socialists, but we all lean much more closely to socialism than to capitalism.

As capitalists, a man and woman in a relationship take advantage of the division of labor which allows them to specialize in their respective "fields." 

Typically the man works and the woman remains at home to be a homemaker or caretaker. Precisely who does what is irrelevant (flip the roles if you so desire), what matters is that there is a division of labor where each person in the relationship fills one role more than another. The result of this division and specialization is that each becomes more productive in their role than they otherwise would be. The man can dedicate more time to improving his productivity at work and thus earn a higher income; the woman can tend to infants and meal preparation to produce higher quality meals and less fussy babies. Both are essential to producing a good home life and both the man and the woman trade the surplus of their labor in an exchange that is mutually beneficial.

However, both the man and the woman also behave as socialists.

Inevitably, a disparity emerges between the man and the woman. Either the man or the woman will wind up "producing" more value than their partner, and according to capitalist principles is entitled to a greater share of the proceeds. But it is socialist, and not capitalist principles, that are often at play here. If the man works to produce an income of $100,000 and the woman produces $0 of value (by virtue of hiring a housekeeper and a private chef, perhaps) the woman is still entitled to eat as much as the man, enjoy the same amenities of the home and participate in all the vacations to Hawaii. Would any man dare say to his wife or girlfriend that she doesn't get X or Y because he earns all the money? Well, a few sorry fools have dared in this way and have received their just desserts as a result.

But more than anything else it is the presence of children which makes the socialism of our personal lives most obvious. As many parents will attest, children are a blessing and the primary source of purpose in their lives. To see your children grow and mature, and for them to lead happy and fulfilling lives is the goal of every grateful parent. But children are also parasites. They contribute absolutely nothing and exist simply to consume and destroy. Your food, your money, your time, your newly-painted walls and reupholstered couch––all are the communal property of your children who will do with them what they wish. Your hard work and decades of thrift are immaterial to a three-year-old who wonders what would happen if your beige couch were suddenly drowned in cranberry juice.

And yet, how many of you parents apply the principle of "do it yourself" to newborns? Do you say, "you get only what you earn?" or do you say, "from each according to their ability, to each according to his need?" For children, the latter principle dominates their upbringing––as it should! Without this socialist impulse the human race could not continue and civilization would cease to exist. But! all of you likely recognize that this principle cannot be universally applied throughout the course of a child's upbringing.

A child who never works for anything and never learns to respect private property is a nuisance to society and will be treated as such. Accordingly, as children draw nearer to adulthood, good parents shoulder them with more and more responsibilities and begin to introduce "capitalist" principles. At first, children are taught to "share" with their classmates––to cooperate and express gratitude with those who share with them––to help facilitate friendships. But later, they are told that certain things are "theirs" which they do not have to let others use. Then, children are given manageable chores "according to their ability" and rewarded with cash for exceptional work. Once in their teenage years, they are encouraged to acquire a part-time job in the summer and allowed to drive the family car provided they pay for the gas and insurance. And eventually, kids are prodded to fly the nest and apply the skills you have taught them "in the real world."

The point of all this is to drive home the point that the issue with socialist principles is not their existence, but the extent to which they are applied.

Thousands of years ago before the dawn of civilization and the growth of the extended society, a tribe of 20-40 people survived only because of their socialist instincts. Enforcing the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to his need" was a manageable task because every member of the tribe knew everyone else. It was common knowledge who was capable and who was not contributing their fair share.

In these communities a member who had more than everyone else was a positive threat to the survival of the tribe. More than likely he stole from other tribesmen, and the animosity directed towards him for rising above everyone else was much less envy and much more jealousy. Man's propensity to resent others who have more or do better, therefore, is a natural and socially beneficial response to a situation which no longer exists. But, as a tribe's population grew and more and more people began to inhabit the community and the surrounding environment, only those tribes which discovered the benefits of private property survived. And furthermore, only those which readily embraced private property––having discovered its superior ability to benefit the tribe––thrived.

After thousands of years of social evolution and rival tribes imitating the more successful tribes, what was once the fact that private property and voluntary exchange produced superior levels of societal wealth became a mere tradition. The tradition then became an oddity, and the oddity became suspect. Since societies did not understand how the tradition of private property came about, they did not know that it was a revolutionary solution to a problem they had all forgotten––the problem of poverty.

Consequently, societies continually experience an ebb and flow that at one time embraces private property and at another embraces socialism. When societies' understanding of capitalism and private property are relatively strong they experience periods of growth and prosperity, but with time they grow comfortable and forget, and their socialist instincts reassert themselves.

  

"He Simply Wants To Be Safe"

We are finally at the point where we can understand Mencken's quote: "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

The endless struggle between capitalism and socialism is fundamentally a struggle between nature and nurture. By nature we are caring, envious, ambitious and fearful creatures. We strive to survive and are predisposed to suspect those who are better off of having attained their wealth dishonorably. The existence of the wealthy is a sign that the "tribe" is being pillaged by bad actors intent on destroying the community for their own personal gain. This cannot stand, so we organize around those who promise to root-out the nefarious pirates who will ensure our demise if left unchecked. In exchange, we agree to intense oversight of our village, strong-arm redistributionism from the "haves" to the "have-nots," and as a result, we are burdened in the modern day with the socialism we are all so familiar with.

By nurture, on the other hand, we are brought up to respect private property, the free exchange of goods and ideas, and are encouraged to attain wealth. Throughout our childhood and in the course of our training and education we are taught skills and presented with choices as to which career to pursue. We are constantly asked, "What will you do with your life?" But really, what society, our family and our peers are asking is "What will you provide to others?" Make no mistake, the capitalist principles which undergird this question are, in a sense, unnatural––they are hardly as entrenched as envy and egalitarianism––but that is precisely the reason why they must be upheld.

They must be upheld because these principles are the product of man's reason and intelligence and are therefore superior to nature. Nature cannot think and so it cannot be rational. Additionally, let's not forget that it is nature which made us poor in the first place. It did not give us food, clothes or medicine (man did that!), only the potential to attain these things through the exercise of our reason. It is only because of this capacity for reason that humanity has managed to not only stay afloat in a sea of unpredictable disaster and famine, but to have the good sense to build a raft from the passing driftwood.

Our socialist tendencies would have us destroy all rafts simply because some people have managed to build bigger and better ones, but this tendency must be resisted at all costs lest humanity drown. 

At the same time, socialism asks us to embrace our nature while rejecting the part most responsible for our happiness and flourishing. Capitalism asks only that reason be embraced. It does not attempt to rewrite human nature or erase parts entirely––it acknowledges the complete human being and promotes channeling the crudest parts of our nature into socially desirable outcomes.

  

You can follow Michael Lucas's personal account on X for commentary on Wisconsin and national politics, economic updates and tasteful arguments with horribly misled people.

The views expressed there are the views of Mr. Lucas alone, and are not necessarily the views of the MacIver Institute or of anyone else.

Interested in the content of this Article?

Reach out to the MacIver Institute to aquire more information