If you read all of his works, from the first to the last, you will understand partly. But more you need to look to what he did rather than what he wrote. He was a “free love” classic California closet socialist. He masked it well, but there it is.
I’ve read virtually his entire body of work. I’m not sure why you’re conflating his views on economics with what he thought of sexual mores,
but calling him a “socialist” other than in his youth is absurd. I can provide reams of documentation that show he was ( on the whole) a Libertarian on this issue, not a collectivist.