Meaning: The quote by David Horowitz, a prominent conservative writer and political commentator, reflects a critical perspective on socialism. In this quote, Horowitz asserts that socialism has ultimately proven to be unworkable in practice, and he attributes this failure to the flawed premises on which socialism is based. He argues that socialism is inherently flawed due to its misunderstanding of human psychology, society, and economy.

From a historical perspective, socialism has been implemented in various forms in different countries around the world. However, Horowitz’s assertion that socialism "didn't work" is often supported by the examples of countries where socialist economic systems have faced significant challenges or outright failure. This includes the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic struggles experienced by countries such as Venezuela and Cuba. These examples have been cited as evidence of the practical difficulties and shortcomings of socialist models.

Horowitz's claim that socialism "could never have worked" reflects a fundamental skepticism about the viability of socialist principles. He suggests that the underlying premises of socialism are inherently flawed, leading to the inevitable failure of socialist systems. This viewpoint aligns with a broader conservative critique of socialism, which emphasizes the potential inefficiencies, lack of incentives, and bureaucratic challenges associated with centralized economic planning and state control.

Central to Horowitz's argument is the assertion that socialism is based on "false premises about human psychology and society." This criticism speaks to the core assumptions of socialism, including the belief in collective ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of economic equality. Critics like Horowitz argue that these principles are at odds with fundamental aspects of human nature, such as the drive for individual achievement, incentive-based motivation, and the diversity of human preferences and aspirations. From this perspective, socialism is seen as disregarding the complexities of human behavior and social interactions.

Moreover, Horowitz contends that socialism is characterized by a "gross ignorance of human economy." This criticism points to the economic implications of socialist policies, particularly in terms of resource allocation, production efficiency, and the role of market forces. Critics argue that socialist systems often struggle to effectively allocate resources, create incentives for innovation and productivity, and respond to changing consumer demands. The result, they argue, is a stifling of economic growth and dynamism, as well as a potential for widespread inefficiency and scarcity.

In sum, David Horowitz's quote encapsulates a critical perspective on socialism, highlighting its practical failures and attributing them to its flawed premises about human psychology, society, and economy. While this perspective aligns with a conservative critique of socialism, it is important to note that interpretations of socialism and its historical implementations vary widely across different ideological and scholarly perspectives. Some proponents of socialism argue that its failures are not inherent to its principles but are instead the result of specific historical and contextual factors. Therefore, debates about the viability and desirability of socialism continue to be contested terrain in political and economic discourse.