Socialism, in essence, is based on Haidt's 'care foundation' and focuses on the group or "greater good". Capitalism is based on Haidt's loyalty and 'ingroup' and 'fairness' foundations and focuses on the individual. As a 'caring' system, socialism requires the input of compassionate, critical thinking humans to modify it so that it does not become totalitarian in its care. As an 'individual' system, capitalism requires the input of compassionate, critical thinking humans so that it does not become ruthless and totalitarian in its promotion of 'individual rights' and materialism. BUT, if you have to choose one or the other, and with the ALL important understanding that human beings themselves are self-serving by nature, which of these approaches would be the more appropriate basis on which to form a society that is made up of materialistic and self-service inclined humans? Do you found your society on the unassailable truth that the holy grail is material possessions and a focus on materialistc self-advancement? Or do you found your society on the basis that cooperation and the good of the community is more important than the good of the individual because if the community thrives then so does the individual? Is the former not similar to telling a person with a drug addiction that drugs are good? And is the latter not similar to telling the same person that drugs are bad? At least, if you want a "spiritual" perspective, I think that is as good as your going to get at the level of the organization of a large society.
The missing piece is a true spiritual element that could save both 'systems' if it were included in them. But notice that true spirituality is pretty much nowhere to be seen in the world today.
This makes sense to me. I guess my thinking was that because of this lack of "true spirituality", these systems cannot work either way, and that yes indeed, were it there, both systems could work, and that that is the crux. But let me try to think your point through.
Seeing socialism as a reaction to enlightenment-materialism-Darwinism-inspired dog-eat-dogging, the socialist impulse was right: the world isn't just dog-eat-dog, and we should care about the vulnerable, the lower classes etc. It's also the case that postmodernism is a similar reaction to enlightenment-materialism: no, we aren't just biological programs or Darwinian creatures, there's more to life than "rational choice" and so on. We should be better than that. This was the initial motivation I think, and there's truth to that obviously.
So if we forget for a moment about the corrupted elements in socialism, at least we can say that the general impulse was on track: to oppose materialistic dog-eat-dogging, and to promote a more community-oriented approach. As you said, you don't give drug-addicts more drugs.
Perhaps then, what we see in the SJW and other pathological socialist excesses, could be seen as a consequence of the same self-serving "drug" that it's supposed to battle. It's interesting that the US is the headquarter of SJWism: it kind of grew out of the dog-eat-dog mindset, finding in French postmodern thinking its perfect, pathological companion. Following your reasoning here, perhaps the very lack of education brought about by the worship of capital has contributed as well - peeps are just too uneducated to counter such toxic ideas and just revel in their selfishness - openly expressed, as in capitalist dog-eat-doggers, or implicit as in SJW narcissists.
Now regarding specific policies, perhaps your argument could be made even stronger if we don't ascribe some things European "third way" socialism has got right purely to policies, but to cultural factors as well - namely the "socialist impulse" that there is more to life than dog-eat-dog and profit. Perhaps those cultures, like France and Germany, value education - and non-utilitaristic education in particular - more highly. Perhaps they also value Haidt's care foundation more highly. It's a cliché in Europe, but perhaps there is some truth to it: that the US in particular has less noble values than Europe, i.e. more greed, consumerism, fixation on money, dog-eat-dog.
As for countries like Venezuela and Qaddafi's Libya and the like, it's foremost an attempt to have the population participate in the oil riches, as opposed to shoveling everything to Switzerland. Good thing. Perhaps there are also values involved, such as a positive nationalist vision for the country based on participation and community.
Now, as you implied, the conservative/"capitalist" vision, at its best, is that of a society of enlightened/virtuous individuals, forming a great society based on shared values. It's a nice vision, only individuals are far from enlightened. The socialist vision is one of an enlightened/virtuous leadership, grounded in the will of all people. Again, it's a nice vision, but leaderships are easily corrupted and far from enlightened.
However, following this line of reasoning, perhaps we could say socialism is the more realistic vision, because it's at least theoretically possible to have a virtuous leadership, as opposed to a population of virtuous individuals. And if you have such a leadership, at least to some degree, like Putin's Russia for example, then this virtuous leadership can "pull up" the entire country. It's pulling the drug addicts out of their addiction, in your analogy.
Which brings us back to the times before the enlightenment and to the feudal system. For all its flaws (it is despised both by capitalists and socialists), it also had something going for it: the noble class was called that for a reason. There was a huge emphasis on nobility in the ethical sense for the nobles. They didn't justify their special status just based on property, like the capitalists, but their being role models/closer to God. Same for the priests of course. So to the degree that at least some of them actually were like that, you had a virtuous leadership, and with that an antidote to the self-serving drug-addiction. In a sense, socialism could be seen as an attempt to rescue some of that in the post-enlightenment era.
Thinking about the pre-enlightenment system, which is generally derided as "authoritarian" and "undemocratic" and all that is also interesting, because all of today's leaders who don't fall in line with the global capitalists are called "authoritarian" and "undemocratic". And in some sense they are - they are strong, have a strong "spiritual" vision, and are uncompromising in their leadership. They also won't allow pseudo-democratic attempts to undermine them such as propping up capitalist-friendly opposition leaders. To the dismay of the "freedom and democracy" capitalists, their people generally love them for that.
Anyway, just tried to think through what you said a bit.
