Or as Penelope puts it in relation to yoga studio owners:

So don’t be delusional about your idea. A yoga studio is generally a wish that your own passion is a gift to other people. But ironically, most yoga teachers who start studios are not paying attention to other people at all. And most entrepreneurs who are raking in money are paying very careful attention to what helps other people.

And let’s not skip her suggestion if your passion is to have a yoga studio:

Actually, this brings us to the real key to opening a successful yoga studio: marry one of those middle-aged divorced guys who hang out in the back of the room, struggling in downward dog, who have more money than God. You know who I’m talking about. Alec Baldwin is the Hollywood poster boy for rich-guy-marries-yoga-teacher, but he’s just the tip of the cliched iceberg. Keep your yoga studio running long enough to marry one of those guys and then they’ll fund it. 

Good advice if you want to be a socialist as well.  Find a nice capitalist to keep you up.   

Pic is the Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam CT Darn good magic trick When They’re Grown, the Real Pain Begins Can a Jellyfish Unlock the Secret of Immortality Pretty much everything you eat is associated with cancer. Don’t worry about it. Doe…

Throughout socialistic literature there is the well-known insistence upon the materialistic interpretation of history – a conception based upon a hunger for things of material enjoyment, and for more and more of them. Fundamentally, they have as much centred their aim on an increase in material possessions as the veriest Napoleon of finance in Wall Street. An existence in which the acquisition of more material wealth is of very large – if not of chief – importance is in the thoughts of both. The ends sought for by the socialists are not, in effect, different from those of the mass of non-socialists who are striving to acquire wealth in order to have ease and leisure for enjoyment. Agreeing in their aims, their differences – which seem to most persons to place them as wide apart as the poles – really consist in choosing different means of accomplishing their ends. The ordinary hustler for wealth, without or within the stock market, may have no definite moral restraint except the fear of the law (in fact, he may even contrive to escape the law), and he accepts existing institutions; but he plans to gain his end, if honest, by productive processes and trade; or, if dishonest, by a thousand ingenious ways of transferring to himself the wealth created by others. On the other hand, the socialist proposes to overturn industrial competition and the institution of private property in the hope – vaguely outlined and not economically analyzed – of transferring the use of wealth from those who have to those who have not. p613-614
 
“Socialism a Philosophy of Failure”, Laughlin, J.L., Scribner’s magazine, 1887
 
That passage is a bit long-winded but it is correct in its view.  The socialist wants what the capitalist wants but seeks to use redistribution to achieve their want rather than engage in mutually beneficial exchange to earn the materialistic items.  One might surmise they lack anything of value in ability, knowledge, or attitude to exchange with others without creating the snake-oil market of their -ism.