Marx’s Romper: The Moral, Evolutionary Case for Free Markets

Competition is a fact of life. Men compete for access to women.

Women also compete amongst themselves, even more viciously than men in some ways.

In market economies, the male competitive drive is channeled into collecting resources. The goal is to use those resources to attract the best mate and the best future for their offspring.

Under socialism, male economic competition is illegal.

Of course, men still compete for women. Under socialism, males compete for social status.

(Hence the names: the goal in a capitalist society is to acquire capital. In a socialist economy, it’s social status.)

In market economies, acquiring wealth has a connection to physical, observable reality. The formula for building wealth is to have the biggest impact on the most lives as possible.

There is no such tether to reality under socialism. The means of acquiring social status are bizarre, byzantine and often counterproductive to civilization and order.

Instead of farming, building houses, plumbing, building killer robots and doing other honest work, men begin to channel their creative energies into signaling social status in a society-wide race to the bottom of the dysgenic toilet bowl.

The problem is that social status signaling quickly reaches its absurd, logical conclusion: the highest status person is the one who has no need to signal his status.

Just like that, suits, ties and sun dresses become sweatpants, T-shirts and flip flops, and People of Wal-Mart is the new GQ. Before long, all standards of decency are decried as old-fashioned and wrong-headed. Non-judgementalism is the philosophy du jour.

Thankfully, like most things human, the pendulum does swing back (as it is now doing yet again).

In the pre-Nazi, German Weimar Republic — as the market economy collapsed and lost all meaning, fashionable Berliners ironically wore lederhosen and grew gratuitous facial hair.

It seems that hipsters, like locusts, are a plague that arrives every seven generations.