Skip to content

Are Socialists Compassionate?

The Competing Quotes:

“Of course I am a socialist. To hold a vision that society can be fundamentally different, to believe that all people can be equal…” – Sen. Bernie Sanders on “Are Socialists Compassionate?”

“It is easy to become conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost.” – Murray Rothbard on “Are Socialists Compassionate?”

My Take on “Are Socialists Compassionate?”

I think Murray Rothbard has is perfectly correct in this picture from the Atlas Society, which is an organization that spreads the views of Ayn Rand as laid out in The Virtue of Selfishness and Atlas Shrugged. Just because socialists say they’re compassionate does not make it so. If they truly cared about the poor and those they claim to have bleeding hearts for, they’d spend their own money on helping them. Perhaps Bernie could get rid of one of his mansions or pay his staffers what he would force private industry to pay them. That would help, right? But, of course, they’ll never do that. Why not? Because the correct answer to “are socialists compassionate?” is a resounding no.

That might seem off-putting or incorrect at first. Socialists like Bernie and AOC want a plethora of government funding to pay for programs that supposedly would help the poor, so doesn’t that mean that they care about those people?

Nope. Not in the slightest. Remember that “government-funded” really means taxpayer-funded. Every single one of these programs they propose would have to be funded by higher taxes or even more national debt, both of which bleed precious resources from the economy.

If Bernie, Warren, or AOC really cared about those people, they would help them a) with their own money so as to not force other citizens to pay for it and b) find ways to help the poor that involve boosting the economy rather than destroying it.

Make no mistake, more socialist policies would absolutely destroy the economy. They would destroy the incentive to work and tax those that do work at unbelievably high rates. That system would be unsustainable and lead to economic ruin.

Luckily, there is a solution to poverty and it’s 100% free and voluntary rather than compulsory. What is it called? Free market capitalism.

Capitalism helps the poor; it creates a rising tide that, in the words of Adam Smith, lifts all boats. Plus, because it means that they have to help themselves rather than receive taxpayer-funded assistance, it adds to the economy rather than destroying it! Nothing could be better.

Will the Red Wave come crashing down on the Democrat's heads in November?(Required)
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In fact, capitalism has helped begin the process of eradicating the sort of base, squalid poverty that has existed on Earth for so long. How? By giving productive people the freedom they need to build a more prosperous society. By recognizing that freedom is what causes prosperity and that the answer to “are socialists compassionate?” is no.

Whereas socialism leads only to misery and poverty, capitalism leads to wealth and higher standards of living. The proof for that is everywhere that economically opened and liberalized after the Cold War. Those countries experienced booms that never could have happened under the tyrannical Soviet system nor would they happen under democratic socialism.

It’s a shame that people don’t understand that the answer to “are socialists compassionate” is “NO!!!” If more people did, then the plague of collectivism would have been wiped out long ago and we wouldn’t have to be writing about topics such as how socialism destroyed Venezuela.

By: Gen Z Conservative