The Ordinary Man's Social Philosophy
Economics, itself, is the child of free markets. Under the rule of a despot there is no private ownership of the means of production and the creation and distribution of goods is a matter of logistics. No-one outside of government decides what to produce or what to consume - they do as they are ordered and take what they are given. This is the reason that "economics" received little interest or attention until the industrial era - it is only where people may decide for themselves what to produce and consume that there is a need for a system of thought that will guide their decisions.
In this sense, economics arose out of necessity: those who engaged in production took interest in the practice of production - to determine what needed to be produced and how it could be produced efficiently so that their efforts would not be in vain. It is only when these independent producers began to enjoy financial success that the topic seemed at all interesting to the academic and the statesman, who then wanted to take control of operations they did not build, to tell the industrialists how to be better, and to help themselves to a share of the profits the industrialists were making.
The great majority of people consider economics to be irrelevant to them, but instead are the demesne of the academic, the politician, and the wealthy elite. Most people fail to recognize that it is their own behavior and the daily choices they make as workers and consumers that drives the economy. Without their participation as suppliers of labor and consumers of the product of labor, there would be no economy at all. The result of this ignorance is a feeling of powerlessness rather than a sense of empowerment, which plays into the hands of those who would otherwise have no power over them.
The socialist-communistic doctrines benefit from the ignorance of the masses, enabling Marx to gain followers by proposing an interpretation cloaked in a "pseudo-philosophical veil" that leaves followers with the sense that they will be taken care of by a higher power if only they surrender themselves to that power. This is, in effect, a religious movement rather than a political philosophy.
The truth is that modern man lives a life of luxury compared to those of a few hundred years prior, and the increase in wealth has come from an increase in the productivity of labor due to the employment of better tools and machines and a more efficient and effective system of production. Because of industrialism and capitalism, man produces more value for less effort. What distinguishes the modern industrial nations from the previous agricultural ones is the continuing growth in the amount of capital that resulted.
There is some talk of the nature of the free market - how man is best motivated to produce when he enjoys the benefit of his own labor - and the open nature of a free-market society, in which a person's behavior leads him to succeed or fail and to determine his own situation. If he succeeds in producing what is wanted, he is rewarded with wealth from those who purchase his product. He does not need the permission of a central authority to rise in his social standing or to have the things he has earned. He is not limited by being born into a specific caste, and success is not a privilege that is granted arbitrarily. He rises or falls by his own brains and the energy he puts into his work.
He returns again to the heirs of wealthy men, and there is no denying that such people enjoy "a certain advantage" as they begin life under more favorable conditions than most other men. But this does not ensure that he will be successful and retain his wealth: he can squander his fortune, neglect his inheritance, and end up in poverty. It is only by managing his inheritance well than he can keep it.
The popular philosophy of the common man misrepresents all of these facts "in the most lamentable way." He believes himself to be disempowered and controlled, prevented from achieving success, relegated to his role - all in a system that accomplishes the exact opposite. He perceives industry as a domain that is beyond his understanding and control, and progress as a mystical force that both gifts him with amenities and threatens him with obsolescence. He believes that wealth and success are matters of chance, belonging to the few of fortunate birth, and well beyond his grasp. He believes the people who are rich have taken something from him. He believes himself deprived while living a life of luxury, and he believes himself powerless while the choices he makes every day move the world economy.
Historically, capitalism preceded socialism in the same way that a host must exist before parasites can evolve. Without the wealth the capitalism produces there would be nothing for socialism to feed upon. There is no nation in which an industrial revolution and the success it brings was fostered by a communist regime. It is more often the case that capitalism builds wealth and communism comes along afterward to appropriate it and, ultimately, destroy not only the wealth but the means by which it was produced. There is no nation in which all people lived better under a communist regime than they did under the capitalist one that preceded it.
Political sentiments, like religious ones, are based entirely on emotion devoid of logic. People support socialism because they believe it will improve their conditions - but this belief is not based upon sound logic. People deride capitalism because they believe it is harmful to them - but again it is a belief that is not based on sound logic, and is often held in contradiction to all evidence to the contrary. The ideology of communism is based on fear and envy, nothing more, and depends on supporters who are immune to facts and logic and are willing to place themselves in the hands of a charismatic leader who makes vague promises on which he never will and never can deliver.
It is paradoxical that the leaders of communist nations denounce and reject the methods by which capitalist nations have gained wealth, but at the same time cast longing glances at the prosperity of the citizens of those nations. It is more paradoxical still that the citizens of those nations fall in line behind the leaders who promise rewards that they never deliver and cling to their beliefs in spite of their growing poverty. And it is paradoxical that the citizens of developed nations, who live comfortable lives of leisure on the products of their capitalistic systems, would even consider that the system of communism would render them any improvement. One need look only at the hardship and abject poverty of the citizens of communist nations to recognize that something is very wrong with their way of life.