Why Every Socialist Economy Eventually Fails (The Uncomfortable Truth)

It always starts with a promise. A

beautiful, seductive, irresistible

promise. That the wealth of the few can

be redistributed to the many. That the

state can manage resources more fairly

than chaotic markets. That nobody needs

to go hungry, homeless, or without

healthcare if only the right people are

in charge. It's a promise that has

inspired revolutions, toppled

governments, and captured the

imagination of brilliant minds across

centuries. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lennon,

Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, all of them

believed with genuine conviction that

they had discovered the formula for a

just society. All of them promised

prosperity, equality, and liberation

from exploitation. And every single one

of them, without exception, produced

poverty, oppression, and economic

collapse. Not because they were uniquely

evil, not because their followers were

uniquely stupid, but because the system

they built violates laws more

fundamental than any political ideology.

the laws of economics. And economics,

unlike politics, doesn't care about your

intentions. It only responds to

incentives. This is the wealth records,

where every video will change how you

see money, history, and the systems

controlling your life. If this is your

first time here, hit subscribe and turn

on notifications. You won't want to miss

what's coming next. Do you think

socialism can ever actually work? Drop

your honest answer below. We read every

single comment and this one is going to

be interesting. To understand why

socialist economies always fail, you

first need to understand why they always

sound so convincing. Because the appeal

of socialism isn't irrational. It's

deeply human. Look around any capitalist

society and you'll see genuine

injustice. Billionaires who inherited

their wealth, workers who labor their

entire lives and retire with nothing.

Health care systems that bankrupt

families, housing markets that price out

entire generations. These are real

problems. And socialism offers a real

sounding solution. Take the excess from

those who have too much. Give it to

those who have too little. Use the power

of the state to ensure that basic needs

are met for everyone. Who could argue

with that? The answer, it turns out, is

reality itself. Because the problem with

socialism isn't its goals. The goals are

often admirable. The problem is its

mechanism, the way it tries to achieve

those goals. And that mechanism contains

a fatal flaw so fundamental, so

mathematical, so immune to political

will that it has destroyed every economy

that has tried to ignore it. That flaw

has a name, the calculation problem. And

understanding it is the key to

understanding why socialism's 100%

failure rate is not a coincidence. The

calculation problem, why central

planning always fails. In 1920, the

Austrian economist Ludvig Von Mises

published an essay that changed the

history of economic thought and he asked

a simple question. How does a socialist

economy decide what to produce? In a

market economy, the answer is prices.

Prices carry information. When the price

of something rises, it signals that

demand is high or supply is low.

Producers respond by making more. When

prices fall, it signals over supply.

Producers respond by making less.

Millions of individual decisions made by

millions of individual people pursuing

their own interests are constantly

coordinating through the price system to

allocate resources efficiently. Nobody

plans it. Nobody controls it. It emerges

spontaneously from the interaction of

buyers and sellers. Mises pointed out

that a socialist economy eliminates this

mechanism. When the state owns all the

means of production, when there are no

private buyers and sellers negotiating

prices, the price signals disappear. And

without price signals, there's no way to

calculate whether resources are being

used efficiently. No way to know whether

it makes more sense to build a hospital

or a factory, whether to plant wheat or

corn, whether to invest in steel or

aluminum. Without prices, economic

calculation becomes impossible. The

state is flying blind. And when you fly

blind with an entire economy, you crash.

Friedrich Hayek, Mises's intellectual

partner and eventual Nobel Prize winner,

extended this argument further. He

pointed out that the information needed

to run an economy efficiently is not

just complex. It is dispersed. It exists

in millions of individual minds in local

knowledge that no central authority can

ever fully access or process. The farmer

knows his soil. The merchant knows his

customers. The engineer knows his tools.

This knowledge cannot be collected,

centralized, and processed by any

government bureaucracy, no matter how

large or sophisticated. The market

through prices aggregates this dispersed

knowledge automatically. Socialism

destroys that aggregation mechanism and

replaces it with bureaucratic guessing.

And bureaucratic guessing, no matter how

well-intentioned, always produces the

same result. Shortages of things people

need. Surpluses of things nobody wants.

And an economy that produces less and

less value with more and more effort.

This isn't ideology. It's information

theory. And every socialist economy in

history has proven it correct. The

Soviet Union, the largest economic

experiment in history, the Soviet Union

was the most ambitious attempt to build

a socialist economy the world has ever

seen. For over 70 years, the Soviet

state controlled every factory, every

farm, every mine, every shop. Central

planners in Moscow decided what to

produce, how much to produce, and how to

distribute it across 11 time zones and

300 million people. At its peak, the

Soviet planning apparatus employed

hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats

attempting to manage an economy of

staggering complexity. They produced

5-year plans of breathtaking detail.

They built massive industrial complexes.

They launched the first satellite into

space. They educated an entire

population. And for a while, the numbers

looked impressive. Soviet GDP grew

rapidly through the 1950s and 1960s.

Western observers worried that the USSR

might actually overtake the capitalist

world economically. But beneath the

impressive statistics, the calculation

problem was doing its silent, inevitable

work. Soviet factories produced what the

plan told them to produce, not what

people actually needed. The famous

Soviet nail story illustrates the

absurdity perfectly. When planners set

production targets in terms of numbers

of nails, factories produced millions of

tiny, useless nails. When targets

switched to weight, factories produced a

few enormous nails that nobody could

use. Either way, the hardware stores

were empty of the nails people actually

needed. Multiply this dysfunction across

every industry in the economy, from food

to housing to clothing to medicine, and

you begin to understand why Soviet

citizens spent their lives standing in

lines for basic goods that market

economies took for granted. By the

1970s, the Soviet economy was

stagnating. Growth slowed, productivity

declined, innovation essentially stopped

because innovation requires risk-taking,

risk-taking requires incentives, and

incentives require the possibility of

personal reward. In a socialist economy

where the state owns everything and

personal profit is eliminated, the

incentive to innovate disappears. Why

work harder when the reward is the same

regardless of your effort? Why take

risks when failure means punishment, but

success means nothing? The Soviet

engineer who invented a more efficient

production method received the same

salary as the one who invented nothing?

The farmer who grew more crops saw his

surplus confiscated by the state. The

factory manager who cut costs and

improved quality faced no competition

because there was no competition. The

entire economy became a monument to

mediocrity because mediocrity was the

rational response to a system that

destroyed the incentive to excel. By

1991, the Soviet economy had collapsed

so completely that the state could no

longer feed its own people. The USSR

dissolved not because it was defeated

militarily, not because of American

aggression, but because an economic

system that violated the laws of

incentives and calculation finally

exhausted itself. 70 years, 300 million

people, immeasurable human suffering.

And the conclusion was the same one

Mises had reached in 1920. Without

prices, without private property,

without incentives, an economy cannot

function. Venezuela, how to destroy the

world's largest oil reserves in 20

years. If the Soviet Union's collapse

was slow and grinding, Venezuela's was

spectacular and swift, and it is perhaps

the most instructive socialist failure

of the modern era. Because Venezuela

didn't start poor. In the 1970s,

Venezuela was one of the wealthiest

countries in Latin America. It sat on

the world's largest proven oil reserves.

Its cities were modern. Its middle class

was growing. Its future seemed bright.

Then came Hugo Chavez, elected in 1999

on a platform of socialist revolution.

Chavez nationalized industries, seized

private farms, imposed price controls,

and used oil revenues to fund massive

social programs. In the short term, it

looked like it was working. Oil prices

were high, money flowed, poverty rates

fell. Chavez was celebrated

internationally as proof that socialism

could deliver prosperity. But beneath

the oil funded boom, the calculation

problem was running its inevitable

course. Price controls made it

unprofitable to produce basic goods.

Farmers stopped farming because the

state set food prices below the cost of

production. Businesses closed because

the state set selling prices below the

cost of manufacturing. Shortages

appeared first of luxury goods, then of

basic staples, then of medicine, then of

everything. When oil prices collapsed in

2014, the illusion ended. Venezuela's

economy, hollowed out by two decades of

socialist mismanagement, had no

foundation left. Inflation exploded. By

2018, it had reached over $1,000,000%

1 million%. A cup of coffee that cost

two belie.

Families carried cash in wheelbarrows to

buy bread. Doctors and engineers fled to

Colombia, Peru, and Chile. Hospitals ran

out of basic medicines. Children died

from diseases that had been eradicated

decades earlier. An entire generation

was sacrificed on the altar of an

ideology that promised them everything

and delivered nothing. Today, over 7

million Venezuelans have fled their

country. The largest refugee crisis in

Latin American history caused not by

war, not by natural disaster, but by

socialism. Cuba, the longest running

economic prison. Cuba offers a different

kind of lesson. Because Cuba didn't

collapse dramatically like Venezuela. It

simply stopped, frozen in time. An

economy preserved like an insect in

amber. A monument to what happens when a

socialist system is maintained by force

long after its failures are undeniable.

When Fidel Castro took power in 1959,

Cuba was one of the more prosperous

countries in the Caribbean. By the

1980s, it was dependent on Soviet

subsidies to survive. When the Soviet

Union collapsed and those subsidies

disappeared, Cuba entered what Castro

called the special period, a euphemism

for a humanitarian catastrophe. Food

rations dropped to starvation levels.

Electricity was available only a few

hours a day. Cubans lost an average of

20 pounds of body weight. The economy

shrank by 35% in 3 years. And yet,

instead of reforming, the Castro regime

doubled down, tightening controls,

imprisoning dissident, blaming America.

Today, 65 years after the revolution,

Cuba remains one of the poorest

countries in the Western Hemisphere. Its

doctors are worldclass, but its

hospitals have no medicine. Its

education system is excellent, but its

graduates have nowhere to work. Its

people are resourceful and talented, but

trapped in an economic system that

punishes productivity and rewards

compliance. The average Cuban state

salary is the equivalent of around $20

per month. $20. In a country where basic

goods cost the same as they do in Miami,

the calculation problem doesn't care how

passionate the revolution was. It

doesn't care how sincere the ideology

is. It produces the same result every

time. poverty, shortages, stagnation,

China's confession. Perhaps the most

powerful evidence that socialism doesn't

work came not from its critics, but from

its most important practitioner. In

1978, after the catastrophic failures of

Maoong socialist policies had killed

tens of millions in famines and economic

collapse, China's new leader, Deng

Xiaoping, made a decision that

implicitly admitted everything the

critics had been saying. He introduced

market reforms. He allowed private

property. He permitted entrepreneurs to

keep profits. He invited foreign

investment. He reintroduced prices. In

other words, he abandoned socialism. Not

officially, not rhetorically. China

still calls itself a socialist state.

But economically, the reforms Dung

introduced were a direct repudiation of

socialist calculation. And the results

were immediate and dramatic. China's

economy grew at nearly 10% per year for

three decades. Hundreds of millions were

lifted out of poverty. The fastest and

largest reduction in human poverty in

history, achieved not by more socialism,

but by less. by reintroducing the market

mechanisms that socialism had destroyed.

China's story is often cited by

socialist defenders as proof that

socialism can work. It is actually proof

of the opposite. China's success began

the moment it moved away from socialist

planning toward market economics. The

lesson is unmistakable. Markets work.

Planning doesn't. Even the Chinese

Communist Party, after enough suffering,

was forced to admit it. North Korea

versus South Korea, the perfect natural

experiment. If you want the clearest

possible proof that socialism destroys

economies, look at the Korean peninsula.

In 1945, Korea was divided into two

halves, North and South. Same people,

same culture, same language, same

history, same starting point. One half

adopted capitalism, the other adopted

socialism.

70 years later, South Korea is one of

the wealthiest, most technologically

advanced nations on Earth. Home to

Samsung, Hyundai, LG, and a standard of

living comparable to Western Europe.

North Korea is one of the poorest, most

isolated, most oppressive nations on

Earth. Its people are shorter than South

Koreans because of chronic malnutrition.

Its economy is smaller than the city of

Columbus, Ohio. Its citizens are

imprisoned in a system that punishes

independent thought and rewards absolute

submission. Same people, same starting

point, different economic systems,

different outcomes. The contrast is so

stark, so complete, so undeniable that

it functions as a controlled experiment

in economic systems. And the result of

that experiment has been clear for

decades. Capitalism creates wealth.

Socialism destroys it. The modern

warning.

Now, here's where the story gets

uncomfortable for Western audiences.

Because socialist economies don't only

fail in Venezuela or North Korea, they

fail anywhere. The core mechanisms of

socialism, price controls, elimination

of incentives, excessive state control,

and spending beyond productive capacity

are applied. And those mechanisms are

being applied in varying degrees across

the Western world right now. France

spends 57% of its GDP through the state,

more than any other major economy. Its

pension system is mathematically

insolvent. Its labor laws have created

mass youth unemployment, and its

government has not balanced its budget

in 50 years. These aren't the symptoms

of a healthy market economy. They're the

early symptoms of the same disease that

destroyed Venezuela. Just slower, more

comfortable, cushioned by decades of

accumulated wealth in the safety net of

the euro. But the trajectory is the

same. Spend beyond your means. borrow to

cover the gap, use the state to manage

what markets should manage, and

eventually run out of other people's

money. Margaret Thatcher understood this

perfectly. The problem with socialism,

she said, is that you eventually run out

of other people's money. It's the most

concise summary of the calculation

problem ever written. And it applies not

just to Venezuela or Cuba or the Soviet

Union. It applies to every government

that believes it can indefinitely spend

more than it produces. The timeline

varies, the destination doesn't. The

uncomfortable truth. So here is the

uncomfortable truth that the history of

socialism forces us to confront. The

failure of socialist economies is not

about bad luck, not about sabotage by

enemies, not about insufficient

commitment to the ideology. It is

structural, mathematical, inevitable.

Every socialist economy fails because it

eliminates the price mechanism that

coordinates economic activity, because

it destroys the incentives that drive

productivity and innovation, because it

concentrates power in the state. and

then discovers that state power

corrupts. Absolutely. Because it

replaces the dispersed wisdom of

millions of free individuals with the

centralized guessing of a political

elite. And because human nature, the

desire to keep the fruits of your own

labor, to be rewarded for your own

effort, to make your own choices, cannot

be abolished by ideology. It can be

suppressed for a while at enormous human

cost, but it always reasserts itself.

The Venezuelan farmers who stopped

farming, the Cuban doctors who fled to

Miami, all of them were responding

rationally to a system that had

destroyed the connection between effort

and reward. They weren't failures of

character. They were rational responses

to broken incentives. And broken

incentives always produce broken

economies. The lesson of history is

consistent across cultures, continents,

and centuries. Economies that respect

private property, price signals, and

individual incentives generate wealth.

Economies that abolish these things

destroy it. Not always immediately, not

always dramatically, but always without

exception. The mathematics are not

cruel. They are simply indifferent.

History doesn't repeat, but if you don't

understand it, it will crush you all the

same. Socialism's promise is beautiful.

Its record is devastating. And the gap

between the two is the most expensive

lesson humanity keeps refusing to learn.

If this gave you a new perspective, hit

subscribe. The Wealth Records. History

has the answers. I'll show you where to

look.