Well, is it? From what I can see throughout history, this is usually where we end up.
It's human nature for individuals to follow their self interest.
For some that translates into trying to achieve power, status, wealth.. over others. (Rulers - Kings, Dictators, Politicans).
For them to do so, requires ideology / mythology and to pull the wool over the eyes of the (Ruled - public, tax payers, slaves), into believing their self interest is better served via electing, worshiping, cowering to their "authority" and "law".
I think that it is the case, if we define human nature as simply genetically endowed instincts. Since human evolution occurred during a time when human social units were very small, the instincts that it supplied us with are adapted to that world. Adapted to what Hayek calls the 'small person to person society'. The growth of civilisation has been a process of overcoming instincts in favour of a more abstract less personal social order. Roughly the same thing as the growth of trade & capitalism. Of course 'socialism' is only one manifestation of this inbuilt tendency. Any set of ideas that revolt against the kind of conventional morality(no doubt what Marxists would call 'Bourgeois' morality) that underpins a market order, emanates from the same evolutionary well-spring.
It helps explain why every generation when one form of collectivism has been abandoned a new one takes its place. I have linked some resources on this below.
See also the epilogue of Law, Legislation & Liberty & also The Fatal Conceit
First of all. Could you define socialism?? At what point does a person begins to be a socialist or engage in socialist behavior??
rosstaylor wrote the following post at Tue, Oct 12 2010 3:44 AM:
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.