Lurking in the dark is the phantom, but being unsuspecting Richard and Elaham just go about their business as usual. They are in danger and do not know it. There are serious consequences ahead for them, perpetuated by the silent phantom. Richard and Elaham would have been wise to have been watchful.
Watchful and wise. When the incentive to save wanes the immediate consequences are not seen unless socialism is full-blown and chronic.
If a society has in the past had incentives to save, then when it transitions to socialism the full effect of this destructive ideology will be masked by capital consumption. There will still be resources carried over from the earlier times when capital was used to generate products for the future.
Examine the incentives to save in socialism. You do not own anything because it is collectivized. Some may reply 'that is only in an extreme system of socialism but other lesser degrees of socialism allow ownership.' But at some point the table tips because the disincentives to be the productive members of society become too great. Why work hard and save when others who do not work hard and save receive the benefits? This progressively whittles away at the numbers who are willing to work hard and save.
For example, when you do not own the place where you live and it needs repair do you (or will most people) take on the costs of the repairs?
The declination and deterioration begins to set in. Look at Venezuela.
Getting out of the blight of socialism is far more difficult than being lulled into it. Without ownership there is very little incentive to save (“Save for what?” is the pressing question.) which means that over time there are less and less available goods and services, eventually leading to the extreme system where the political class has all the wealth and the rest are impoverished.
Why would politicians strive for this? First, they are the ones in the political class. Then there are those who are actually militant Marxists who think that helping to destroy capitalism leads to the glorious age of communism!
How can politicians get away with portraying socialism as a noble ends?
- First, there is enough remnant capital that hides - in the short run - the destructiveness of socialism.
- Second, the politician demonizes wealth, which enables the State:
- to distract attention away from the corruption of the State
- to extract even more from those who have wealth, sustaining the State
- and this also satisfies the envy of the masses.
- Third, the politician actually unabashedly promises to give people some of the wealth that it confiscates from the wealthy.
- Fourth, the politician allows the State to counterfeit the currency and amass great debt to give the illusion of viability.
Socialism = Declination. It is the destroyer of civilization.