In the end, I tend to conclude that the socialist economic model, while perhaps a nice idea, is simply too idealistic and therefore unsuited to a world such as ours, where people are fundamentally self-serving. In human society, you will always have to brutally enforce a largely 'egalitarian' system. As a general rule, when you have to brutally force people to accept something, you know you're on the wrong track. It seems that the Western 'elite' know this and know that they have to manipulate people via their base emotions of fear - to get them to accept what would otherwise be unacceptable to them - and greed - to gain control over them by corrupting them (ponerization). That said, I still admire the Venezuelan leaders and people that attempted to implement Bolivarian socialism, even if I think they are hopelessly naive.
I think socialism makes a relatively good observation of the symptoms of the "disease", especially on these two points: (1) There are countries/powers that are predatory and their main purpose is to depredate weaker countries no matter the human cost; (2) The most negatively affected (at least in material terms) are always the lowest social classes (who in general in less developed countries are a significant portion of the population).
IMO one of the major flaws of socialism is that all the solutions they think for these problems work exclusively in the virtual reality inside their minds; in practice, most of their "solutions" tend to result in disaster.
Yeah, I think that until someone comes up
with a genius idea for a new political system and how to implement it,
the lesser evil is a capitalist society with regulations to avoid corporate abuse and protect the working class, as well as some state-sponsored welfare for basic needs like healthcare. Putin himself was once asked if communism could return to Russia, and he said that he didn't think so, but that there could (should) be some socialist elements to the system itself. You can't control society, but the state should intervene where it's obvious that there's going to be a problem. This is problematic already, but it's better than the other two extremes (Adam Smith vs Marx).
I agree. The way leftist intellectuals understand the world is somewhat arrogant and seems to be supported by a conviction that they (intellectuals) have a certain cognitive superiority over the working mass that they are so determined to empower and liberate from oppression.
From this way of seeing themselves and the world, it is that their performance tends to have these characteristics:
1- They underestimate the ordinary people: many times they end up treating them like children; for their own good they do not feel obliged to tell them the truth or explain it to them because surely they would not understand the "subtleties of the refined art of politics and leadership". For this reason, their governments tend to be paternalistic and assistentialist, they do not stimulate freedom or creativity, nor do they allow people to incorporate essential human values such as responsibility and effort. Indirectly, they tend to promote laziness.
2- Centralism and iron grip: the socialist core seems obsessed with control; in general they always seem to be in a state of permanent fear, fearful that someone will start asking uncomfortable questions and they progressively lose control. That's why they tend to be paranoid and their list of enemies ends up being more voluminous than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
3- They lack practical sense: for them, Ideas are more important than Reality, the poetic beauty of a phrase is much more important than if that phrase reflects reality or not.
Of course, this is a personal impression or at least this is what I have observed in most of the leftist progressive governments that have spread throughout Latin America in the past decade. Sure, not all of these governments embodied these characteristics with the same intensity, but IMHO these factors allow us to draw a line that connects all of these governments.
On the other hand, capitalism (in philosophical terms at least) seems to trust more in human beings and their capacities. This confidence would allow (in ideal terms) to act freely and stimulate the creativity and development of the individual. The problem seems to arise from the idea (erroneous in my opinion) that the playing field gives equal opportunities to all and that any state intervention would affect this fine balance.
I guess you could take the best of both "worlds" and find a better way to regulate the development of a nation. I imagine there is a point somewhere in the middle of the pathological paternalism of the left side and the typical capitalist wild jungle that arises as a consequence of the absolute lack of State protection and regulation.
