Is socialism ‘natural’?

[The Iron Boot]

It’s often been argued that capitalism accepts human nature for what
it is whereas socialism tries to change it. Capitalism is realistic
whereas socialism is idealistic. Capitalism believes that human nature
is essentially unalterable, socialism believes ‘human nature’ is but
the product of social conditioning(or, it’s innately noble before
being perverted by an unjust society).


Capitalists say that people are, by nature, self-interested, even
greedy. This basic fact can be suppressed but not rooted out or
changed. If suppressed, it undermines the very part of man that makes
him industrious, ambitious, innovative, and creative. Most people work
hard or take risks because for reward. If people are not allowed to
work for gain and glory, they won’t be motivated. So, for wealth to be
produced, capitalism is the best way. It doesn’t suppress human
nature of self-interest or even greed. Rather, it channels and
controls our nature through a system of laws and ethics.


Socialists long disagreed with capitalists. They believed man can be
conditioned or ‘socially engineered’ to work for the ‘common good’; we
could all be trained to work for social or moral incentives than for
material incentives. This was the idea behind productive socialism,
and it has either failed or seriously underperformed relative to
capitalism everywhere. Some socialists admit that ‘moral incentives’
aren’t productive but still defend their moral value. But, most
socialists have rejected socialism as a productive economic model.
Most of today’s socialists are distributive than productive. They
understand that capitalism produces wealth much faster and in greater
amount than socialism does. Therefore, the purpose of socialism is not
to replace capitalism but to feed off capitalism to support policies
for the ‘common good’.


The question I want to raise if distributive socialism goes against
human nature. Productive socialism certainly does. But, couldn’t one
argue that distributive socialism gels well with human nature? Humans
are, by nature, self-interested and greedy, true. But, humans are
also, by nature, envious. It could be argued that envy is a form of
self-interest and greed. When a child sees that another child has
more cookies, he wants some of those cookies. When someone sees that
his friend has a much bigger house, much more money, and enjoys more
luxury, he wants the things his friend has. Envy is natural. And,
envy is the heart of distributive socialism. (To be sure, envy also
serves capitalism. People work hard because they want to keep up with
the Joneses. People bust their butts so they can dress fancy and drive
expensive cars like rich folks do. For talented people, envy drives
them to harder work, greater ambition. But, some people are either too
lazy or too dumb to succeed. Their envy has little or limited
productive value. A poor smart envious Jew can use his brains and
make millions in several years, but a poor dumb goy will make peanuts
no matter how hard he tries. He just doesn’t have the natural talent
to succeed like smart folks. Similarly, a Mexican-American can train
all he wants, but he’s not going to the NBA; he wont’ enjoy money and
chicks professional athletes do. This is where envy is served by
distributive socialism. For masses of dummies, it’s the easiest way to
get a ‘piece of the pie’.)



Good or bad, distributive socialism may well be very much in harmony
with human nature. Productive socialism isn’t mainly based on envy;
at best, it’s based on pre-emptive envy--creating a society where no
one will have more than others and thus no reason to envy others.
Productive socialism is based on the idea of collective effort. It’s
the idea that wealth should be created together by everyone, and since
everyone created it together, everyone should get an equal share.
But, everyone knows that capitalism produces far more wealth than
productive socialism does. This is because capitalism channels and
harvests the energies of human nature rather than suppressing them.
But, it must be said that distributive socialism also channels human
nature. Distributive socialism is not productive, but it may play a
role in bringing forth a degree of social co-existence between the
have-mores and have-lesses based on the ways of human nature.


Suppose there’s a kid is hired by his uncle to paint the fence. The
kid is paid and buys 20 chocolate bars. His brother wants some and
throws a tantrum. All chocolate bars rightfully belong to the kid who
painted the fence and bought them with his money. He worked out of
self-interest, very much in line with human nature. And, he bought
yummies to satisfy himself in keeping with human nature.
But, it’s also natural for the brother to feel envious and throw fits
of jealousy because his brother has all the candy. Suppose the jealous
brother was never hired by the uncle, can’t find means to earn money
to buy candy, or is too lazy to work at odd jobs. Suppose the parent
finally steps in and tells the brother with the 20 chocolate bars to
give 3 to his brother. Fair or unfair, that may restore peace in the
house. The brother who worked and earned his money still gets to keep
the lion’s share of the candy. The envious brother is partly
satisfied because he got something than nothing. And, the parent can
finally get some peace in the house without the two kids bickering and
fighting constantly.


Or, consider the natural world. Animals are, by nature, self-
interested and ‘greedy’. Animals hunt for keeps, but there’s no rule
that says an animal is limited to his own kills. If a bear comes upon
a kill felled by wolves, the bear will try to take it. Hyenas and
lions raid the others’ kills. Packs of hyenas try to take the kills
of other packs of hyenas. Prides of lions do the same with other
prides. All predators do this. They take whatever they can. Animals
hunt for their own kills but also take others’ kills. Whether we
call it hunger, envy, or greed, animals want something through effort
or no effort at all. In some cases, animals fight eachother to the
death over kills. Or, an animal or a pack will retreat when confronted
with stronger animal or larger pack. But, this isn’t always the case.
There are times when a kind of crude ‘distributive socialism’ prevails
among the beasts.


For example, suppose a pack of wolves fell a large bison and start
feastingt. We could say they ‘produced’ a kill. Suppose a bear comes
along and wants the kill. It could be said the bear is ‘envious’ of
the kill. Though the bear didn’t ‘produce’ the kill, he wants it just
the same naturally. Now, three things can happen. The bear can drive
out the wolves, or the wolves can drive out the bear. But, in rare
cases, the bear and wolves, though unhappy and growling at one
another, may decide to ‘share’ the kill. If the bear and the wolves
are evenly matched, they may sense it’s best to feast on the kill
together even while maintaining a certain distance and constantly
growling at one another. Why risk life and limb fighting over the
kill? Of course, bears and wolves don’t consciously understand this
process in the contractual sense. But, in an instinctive sense, both
parties may feel that’s it’s better to share, with each side getting
something, than have both parties maul one another viciously with
everyone getting hurt or even killed. Animals don’t understand game
theory, but there is a certain natural dynamic that takes place in
such situations.


Animals want to have it all. An animal will lay claim to an entire
area and mark it as his own. But, there are times when it will have to
tolerate ‘socialistic’ intrusions of others on its territory or bounty
if it’s to have a peace of mind and find some enjoyment in life.
Suppose there’s a stream full of salmon and a bear slunkers along and
claims it as his own territory. It ‘claims’ and marks the stream; it
wants to have all the salmon in the stream for itself. But, suppose
other bears arrive one by one and intrude on this marked territory.
Suppose the newly arrived bears are ‘envious’ of all the goodies in
the stream and want some for themselves. The bear that first arrived
and claimed the territory can fight all the newcomers. If it’s
powerful enough, it may drive them all way. But, it may well be wiser
to ‘share’ the stream. The first-arrived bear may still keep the best
part of the stream for itself, but it may have to let the other bears
fish in the other parts of the stream. If the original bear chases
after every new bear, it will grow weary, go hungry, and may even get
killed in the fight. So, in order to keep something than end up with
nothing, the greed of the bear will have to accommodate the envy of
the other bears. This is any kind of conceptual socialism but defacto
natural socialism.
Something similar can be seen among polar bears. Generally, polar
bears are solitary animals who hunt and eat their own food. But, if a
bunch of polar bears come upon a giant beached whale, they may go into
‘socialist’ mode. Suppose a polar bear comes upon a dead whale,
claims it, and wants it all for itself. Suppose other bears arrive
and want some of it since it’s a BIG feast. Often, all the bears
will feast together even if they remain wary and suspicious of one
another. It’s almost as if an instinctive game theory kicks into
place. If the bears all fight for the entire whale, many will get hurt
or even killed, and no bear may enjoy the meal. But, if the first-
arrived bear shelves its ‘greed’ nature and accommodates the ‘envious’
nature of all the bears, all the bears will enjoy something.


So, one could understand distributive socialism of the human world in
the same way. Of course, it’s not ‘fair’ under the rule that says
those who earn their wealth should keep it all. But, the fact is there
are far more mediocre folks than talented people. Far more people are
unlucky than lucky. All people naturally want personal gain and glory,
but relatively few people achieve much of such. Successful people
naturally want to keep their gain. But, unsuccessful people naturally
feel envious. Since ‘greed’ has negative connotations, capitalists say
great achievers seek ‘success’, ‘excellence’ and ‘greatness’. Since
‘envy’ has negative connotations, socialists say the people seek
‘social justice’, ‘fairness’, and ‘equality’. But, at the root of both
-isms is the essence of human nature: greed and envy. And, if we
examine both carefully, they are two sides of the same coin. Envy is,
in other words, greed of the mediocre, the unlucky, or the lazy.
Capitalist greed is about using your talent and ‘exploiting’ partners,
situations, and employees to maximize your profit, glory, and/or
fame. Socialist greed is about using the ‘protection racket’ of the
government to take some of that good stuff from rich successful
folks.
Some liberal-minded capitalists may pat themselves on the back and
take pride in their compassion and willingness to ‘share’ with the
less fortunate, but something more elemental is taking place. Like the
wolves who figure it’s better to let the envious bear have some bison
and leave them in peace to eat the rest of the bison, successful
capitalists figure it’s better to ‘buy off’ the people’s envious
resentments by offering them some freebies.


And, this is the thinking of the capitalist class who helped Obama get
elected and now dominate his administration. Though Obama is a
stealth socialist radical, most of the people in his administration
(the oohs, aka liberal Jews) are actually successful capitalist types
who are trying to expand distributive socialism in order to save their
own golden goose.
They are essentially supporters of the New Economy or global
capitalism which allows the smart, cunning, knowledgeable, rootless,
and cosmopolitan to trot around the world and make fortunes undreamt
of by previous generations. This process has made the top 2% very very
rich, a group that is disproportionately ooh-ish(liberal Jewish). The
global capitalists love this cash cow so much that they don’t want to
let it go. But, this process has led to the stagnation of Middle
America which lost millions of jobs overseas. If this goes on, there
may be an angry mass revolution. Middle America–mostly goyim–may rise
up against the oohs. So, these oohs are using Obama to institute
socialism not so much to empower the people but to defang their rage
and anger. More and more Middle Americans have grown envious and
jealous of the superduper oohs who live in fancy condos, rich suburbs,
the gated communities, etc. The oohs think, ‘gee, maybe if we give
them free healthcare and tax credit checks(welfare checks by other
name), they’ll remain stupid, docile, and happy watching American
Idol’.


Anyway, this proves that socialism too can be in harmony with human
nature. For distributive socialism to work meaningfully however, it
must be conditional. People mustn’t just get free stuff through the
government but be willing to do community service or participate in
public works and lead a reasonably healthy and responsible life. Lazy
and irresponsible people who simply want to mooch off others 100%
deserve to be shot. In other words, socialism can work if it’s
fascist than welfare-ist.