There is a fundamental divide between socialists and what we unfortunately have to call conservatives (liberal would make more sense since it means ‘free’ but the word is monopolized by statists.) The socialist believes that there is a finite amount of wealth that, to be fair, must be divided up among people more evenly. Hence you hear about people talking about ‘1% of the population monopolizing the wealth’. Of course this belief attracts swarms of statists to the point that virtually every socialist is also a statist. (That effect is due to the simple fact that someone has to be the one allocating the existing wealth, hence the statist.)
So I wanted to push this thought and its implications even further. The core belief that there is a finite supply of money means that the fewer people, the wealthier they all are. Hence, the socialist is likely to support population control and push the overpopulation theory which is accompanied by the horrors of a culture of death.
Thinking about it this way: Say there are ten people and one of them has a pie. If ‘society’ believes that taking up to half a person’s wealth is acceptable, the nine others take half his pie, and everyone gets 1/18th of a pie. Now, there are two ways that everyone can have more pie: take more pie from the guy with the pie, or have fewer people to distribute it among. If you take all the pie from the one guy, and then share with everyone, everyone gets 1/10 of the pie (or 1/9 if they kill the guy that had pie.) On the other hand, if the take half the pie, and reduce their numbers to five, then everyone gets 1/10 of the pie as well. If you put those together, everyone gets 1/5th of the pie.
Notice how this example coincides with the examples of socialists and communists in history. Generally they kill the pie owners, and divvy up the pie, while the people with the guns keep whatever pie they want for themselves.
Now conservatives always argue that wealth is ‘not zero-sum’ that there is potentially infinite wealth. What would that look like with pie? Well, everyone would have whatever pie they made themselves. Some people would have lots of pie, and some people would have only a cherry tart, but there would be as much pie as people were willing to make. (Actually, in the conservative scenario, one guy makes lots of pies and trades them for the other stuff the other guys make, so that everyone has pies, and phones, and steak and fresh water etc…)
Now, comes the key point. Conservatives like to base their actions round the way the world really works, which is admirable. They also argue with socialists and statist that this way, the potentially infinite wealth way, is the way the world really works. However, that is where they are wrong. You see, it seems to me that when socialists make the laws, the world really does work in a ‘finite pie’ sort of way. If you put a bunch of human beings into a socialist world, wealth indeed is finite, and everyone but those in charge (with guns) are equally poor. However, if you put the same humans into a system designed by conservatives wealth is an expression of an individual’s actualized potential, and hence is only limited by how many people there are and how hard they work.
I think that this is why socialist and especially communist societies are fixated on a culture of death. They are obsessed by the idea that there is already too little to go around, and more people will just starve. They put in place policies like China’s one child horror, they have a reckless disregard for individual lives, and everything is counted in terms of monetary cost to the government.
At the same time, the conservative looks at the wealth of innovation around us, the wealth of the West, and sees that it is directly tied to the baby boom after WWII, with so many new people inventing, buying, selling, making their own pie, the western world became unbelievably wealthy compared to all the rest of history. Now, due to the efforts of statists and socialists, the west has no children, and hence declining wealth, and no future.
All in all, I think it is just as vital to understand one’s enemies in the intellectual world as it is to know yourself and know your enemy in actual battle. Here, the major point is that there is a fundamental divide between these worldviews, and to ignore them is dangerous. It is a fundamental truth about humanity that at a certain point, two worldviews are so divergent that they have nothing to say to each other; indeed they have nothing they can say to each other. It may be that we are rapidly approaching this point, where virtually no one recognizes that the two mindsets are incompatible even in discussion.