Dennis Prager argued that socialism breeds selfishness, and recent Democratic rhetoric and policy proposals illustrate the cultural and economic consequences he warned about.
Dennis Prager celebrated his birthday on August 2, and his observations about political culture remain part of the conversation. Looking back at his work shows how persistent some arguments about ideology and behavior have become. This piece revisits those claims and examines current examples from the left.
Prager first made the case in a July 2016 video that socialism encourages self-centered habits rather than selflessness. That claim is worth revisiting as activists and elected officials press for sweeping government programs. The exchange between ideals and incentives is at the heart of the debate.
“In the contemporary world, it’s taken as a given that capitalism, with its free market and profit motive, is based on selfishness and produces selfishness. Socialism is based on selflessness and produces selflessness,” Prager said. “Whatever its intentions, socialism produces far more selfish individuals and a far more selfish society than a free-market economy does. And once this widespread selfishness catches on, it is almost impossible to undo it.”
You can see that dynamic in the rhetoric coming from high-profile Democrats and Democratic Socialists. Bernie Sanders routinely targets the billionaire class while advocating for redistribution of wealth, insisting the state should redirect resources from the rich to others. That posture frames public policy as zero-sum and rewards grievance politics rather than personal initiative.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushes for “free” healthcare and other programs that would expand government control over private choices. That slogan masks complex trade-offs about incentives, labor, and pricing. The shorthand of “free” rarely matches the fiscal math behind large-scale programs.
Abdul El-Sayed openly calls for higher taxes on billionaires as part of his platform and frames those taxes as remedies for social problems. That posture simplifies systemic issues into a revenue puzzle solved by taking from the wealthy. It also echoes a broader trend of treating private wealth as a public resource.
https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/2089426982291345557?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
In Texas, James Talarico claims healthcare is a human right, a phrase that carries emotional weight and practical obligations for providers and payers. Debates over rights often ignore who pays and how services are allocated. Policy choices then become moral judgments about labor and compensation.
Saying that access to another person’s labor is a right collapses the distinction between entitlement and exchange. When the state mandates that people provide skills and services without direct compensation, it raises fundamental questions about freedom and responsibility. Medicare-style reimbursements and below-market rates illustrate how promises on paper clash with real-world incentives.
The left often points to the very wealthy as the solution when it suits the narrative, suggesting billionaires could simply “save” systems like healthcare with a one-time check. Bernie Sanders suggested such ideas while discussing Mark Zuckerberg and wealth taxes. That kind of headline-friendly math obscures scale and feasibility.
Ignoring how wealth is structured, the claim that $10.5 billion could “save” healthcare for three million people breaks down quickly: that equals roughly $3,500 per person. When analysts price out ambitious platforms like those of the DSA, estimated annual costs start near $21,000 per taxpayer and can climb toward $64,000. The median American income is about $62,000, so those numbers shift the burden dramatically.
Prager ties these policy choices to a cultural shift that devalues self-reliance and adulthood. “In various European countries and now increasingly in the US, it is becoming common for young people to live with their parents well into their 30s and not infrequently beyond. And why not? In the welfare state, taking care of yourself is no longer a virtue,” Prager said. “Why? Because the government will take care of you.”
“Therefore: Socialism enables — and as a result produces — people whose preoccupations become more and more self-centered,” he continued. That change redirects civic energy from contribution to claiming, altering how citizens view obligations to family and community.
Today’s political messaging often turns services into entitlements, and entitlements then become framed as rights that must be provided regardless of cost. Education, healthcare, housing, and retirement shift from personal plans to public guarantees. That shift tends to reduce incentives to save, work, or pursue independent solutions.
“You cannot be happy if you are not grateful and you cannot be a good person if you are not grateful. That’s why we constantly tell our children, ‘Say ’thank you.’ But socialism undoes that. After all, why would a person be grateful for receiving an entitlement – who’s going to be grateful for getting what they’re entitled to?” Prager said.
The debate on the left reframes wealth and labor as something to be redistributed rather than earned, and policy proposals often punish success with heavier taxes and more regulation. Those measures can discourage entrepreneurship and tilt incentives toward dependency rather than production. The ideological case for expanded government control rests on a view of scarcity that treats private initiative as a social ill.
The argument that socialism breeds selfishness remains provocative and politically charged, but it is grounded in questions about incentives, character, and the fiscal limits of large-scale entitlement programs. Prager was also right that once that selfishness takes root, it is almost impossible to undo.
