Thus “evolution” (aka progress) selects for collective exploitation. However the government benefits by increasing the average wealth of the population. Could this explain the prevalence of socialism? It essentially just gets lucky more often than other forms of government.
Comments (5)
sorted by:
Right. I think that’s the limiting factor. Sort of like how viruses that are too destructive and up burning themselves out
The prevalence of socialism, or at least the human tendency towards it, is explained primarily by two things. First, we come from small groups historically, and are raised in families. Families, when done correctly, are essentially benevolent socialist dictatorships with dad in charge. This training from early life, and our ancestral history, leads many to falsely think we can scale things up for society.
The second reason is human laziness, many people want others to do the work for them and they take the rewards.
Is that socialism or paternalism? I understand what you mean here but i think there’s an important difference. I’d be more in favor of a paternalistic republic which i think reflects what you’re mentioning about historic
Paternalistic republics, in historical practice, were small in size, and were homogeneous. Athens made itself an empire after defeating the Persians and lost itself in the process, likewise Sparta after defeating Athens in the Peloponnesian War, and Rome, likewise after defeating its arch nemesis Carthage and forging a polyglot empire.
In America, I think we got to that point sometime after the Civil War when the mass immigration started and we started to think of ourselves as an empire to compete with Europe. We had a reprieve from 1924 through 1965 when there was almost zero immigration.
The folks on consumeproduct.win who want a white ethnostate and Christian paternalistic republic are in fairyland. It's not going to happen, unless the US breaks apart.