(Part of a series: The Problems Associated with a Collectivistic Society)
The fourth problem associated with a collectivistic society is: it creates an environment of dependency.
The moment we begin to think that the solution to our financial problems lies within the bank accounts of those wealthier than us, we’ve immediately become dependent on said rich person. Money talks, and if socialists profess that we as the middle class need to wrestle power away from the billionaire class, why give the billionaire class more power by being dependent on their money? As well as fostering an environment of dependency, socialism fosters an environment of hate-which is interesting considering the “Stop Hate” picket signs that democrats carry. The middle class says they hate the billionaire class, and because of that they want to take their money away from them and use it to fund their own lives. In response to this, the billionaires have hatred for those who want to take their money. If we truly want to end hatred, we should learn to live our lives independently of anyone else. Being dependent on someone gives them power over you, and a power imbalance creates hate.
Power imbalances aside, the reason socialism fosters an environment of dependency is obvious: people are living off of other people’s labor.
For the sake of simplicity, a scenario we shall concoct: Trisha and Ann are planning a party. Trisha assumes that Ann will be responsible for bringing the jam to go on the bread because Ann lives on a berry farm. Ann assumes that Trisha will be responsible for bringing the jam because Trisha has often supplied similar condiments in previous engagements. Upon commencement of the party, Ann and Trisha find themselves without any jam. Their dependency on each other to carry the responsibility fell through, because each party involved had 100% confidence in the other’s capabilities an responsibilities while having 0% of logic or drive to carry out the responsibility themselves.
Working together and sharing can be a very good thing, in fact children are often taught sharing at a very young age- socialists love to proclaim this and their slogan even reads: “Socialism: the radical idea of sharing”. However, the politics of running a kindergarten classroom where Jimmy has taken all the toys away from Ellen, are vastly different from the politics of a country where Ellen thinks she’s entitled to Jimmy’s income. You see, in kindergarten, we don’t work for our toys, but in life we do work for our money. Therefore, goods and possessions that people own cannot be simplified to the “radical idea of sharing” because if the labor was unequal, the outcome was unequal and an equalization of this would mean that someone was getting robbed of their labor.
For those who are poor enough that they don’t know where their next meal is coming from, a billionaire seems lavishly frivolous. Their wealth is so incomprehensible, that the poor see it as “they won’t even notice the chip removed from it”. Perhaps this may be true, but upon multiplication of these financial parasites, their wealth will begin to noticeably deteriorate. The rich only remain rich because of frugality. If their seemingly “endless” wealth were redistributed evenly among those who weren’t as blessed, their wealth would be gone, and no one would be rich; the apparent dream of socialists. “If I cannot be rich, no one can”. In strong discordance with the dream of capitalists, “If all people work hard, all can be rich”
The paradigm must be switched 180 degrees. Sustainable capital does not come from others who labor, but from laboring yourself.