Understanding the psychology of socialism

What is the psychological nature or drivers of someone who proffers socialist or cultural Marxist viewpoints?

• Is it psychologically comforting to have someone else to blame for your problems? (feeling the 'warm blanket' of victimhood)
• Externalisation and projection of one's envy and resentment onto an evil other? (i am envious of the wealth of the bad capitalist; that's 'unfair' and he should give some of his wealth to me, because he exploited me)
• Is it a rationalisation for being in a parasitic, non-contributory position in society? (e.g. academic, NGO rent-seeker)
• Virtue-signalling?
• Gibs-seeking?

Mostly likely all of the above, at different times and circumstances. But what if it is also a cry for help, or a symptom of a repressed cry for help.

What do I mean by 'repressed cry for help'?

The socialist is saying they are not happy with their circumstances. They are not content with what they have materialistically, especially when they compare themselves to other. They may have negative self-esteem because they equate wealth with social status.

The socialist is not really envious of wealth, because most are well off compared to the vast bulk of humanity, rather they are envious of the social status conveyed by wealth. They see social standing and wealth as inseparable. They think the wealthy are better people and happier, they resent that and are therefore determined to tear them down. 

Their concern for the 'poor' (who may actually be well off compared to third-worlders) is really a concern for themselves. They are comforted by the fact that there are people worse off than themselves, however, the poor are really a weapon against those better off. The socialist holds up the poor as evidence that the wealthy are greedy, evil and somehow responsible for the plight of the poor. The socialist will not allow for individual differences (e.g. IQ), choices, upbringing and heritage being responsible for wealth disparities, because that would destroy their narrative. By extension, the wealthy are also responsible for the socialist's lack of wealth, social status and self-esteem. The socialist's imaginings result in a world where the wealthy have psychological control over the mental state of the socialist. Only by gaining wealth can socialists alleviate their sense of inadequacy. As most can't do this, the alternative is tearing down others psychologically (because they can't do it physically save for a revolution).

Interestingly, a wealthy person can become an ally to the socialist if they adopt their cause against another 'privileged' person or otherwise support the socialist narrative. The wealthy ally need give up nothing but their integrity -- only words are required, but an adopted brown kid earns bonus points. In the past, this wouldn't fly, but it does in today's world of identity politics.

The ultimate enemy nowadays is a rich, older white man. Though, a socialist can find substitute enemies for the wealthy, such as poorer white people who hold 'incorrect' political opinions. A socialist's concern for the 'poor' evaporates in these cases. They will ascribe ignorance to these poor whites, but not to poor POC who may hold the same view.

Some socialists may actually earn more than the average, but they feel like frauds because they don't actually contribute much to society, and may divert public money away from where it is better deserved. They need to maintain a false narrative that rationalises public expenditure on themselves. They still feel inaequate despite their wealth because their materialistic comparisons are always relative. They are never satisfied with what they have.

Socialists don't feel in harmony with the world. They don't perceive their lack of success as due to a lack of desire or drive, rather they blame externals and others for their failures. They never realise that they can be happy regardless of circumstances. They feel disempowered when there is nothing really stopping them living a fulfilling life.

Assuming the above - and I have only just started to entertain the idea - would teaching self-reliance and Stoicism be a constructive, effective and potentially permanent cure for the Socialist worldview?

Stoicism teaches one to be happy with what they have. That material wealth is not a measure of social standing and although not a bad thing, striving for wealth beyond one's control is foolish and leads to unhappiness. Stoicism also teaches to give meaningfully to the commonwealth, rather than to extract from it and justify such parasitism with lies about it being a virtuous thing.

As much as I sometime enjoy beating up the Left, I don't really want to seem them defeated so I can gloat like my football team won. I want the Left and the Left-Right spectrum gone entirely, because that spectrum is terribly simplistic, misleading and frames issues inappropriately. I want Stoicism to wipe out the Left.

Many people treat politics like Red vs Blue team but this is a massive mistake, because either team can 'win' while still imposing policies that are harmful. People who treat politics like Red vs Blue don't really know what their doing. It's the policies that count, always, and it is quite possible for 'your team' to win an electoral contest but overall be more harmful than what the 'opposing team' would be.