"Synoptic Delusion"

Someones phrasing of their critical view offered about "socialism". The quote is from an article about the failed socialistic economy in Venezuala that argued that there is something recurringly delusional when leadership in a society....."believe that a small group of people can hold and manage all the information spread out over millions of actors in a market economy". History does suggest that this strategy results in "the leadership making disastrous decisions that disrupt production and distribution, leading to a whole series of disasters that result, at last, in a completely dysfunctional economy",
The title epithet could, of course, just as well have been used to disparage the many poor socio-economic outcomes that have arisen in "strong capitalism" economies, i.e., sweat shops, child labor, Mara Lago. Perhaps historically, in communication challenged cultures, leaving millions of actors in an economy to their instinctive interactions actually resulted in a definable governing strategy. However, add technology to laissez-faire capitalism, and what do you get.....well, "defacto socialism, in that.......in a capitalist economy where top down technology is employed by self replicating elites to manipulate market demand, the results looks damn close to a socialist nomenclatura strategy. Except that in classical socialistic economies, the leadership, i.e. nomenclatura, were required to pretend they were altruistic. As technology inevitable emerges in socialistic economies, the potential increases in efficience appear to be converted to wealth held by the nomenclatura. With or without technology the "class-less society" never seems to emerge.
In a capitialist plus technology (C+T) economy, the socialist nomenclatura equivalent, the famous !% or super-priviledged, have no such constraining obligation. To the contrary, the !% protocol recommends that they take as much resource as they can amass, and offer a small portion back for discressionary public benevolence. But, no "wealth tax" allowed.
My summary take on the merits/stability of the two opposing governing strategies is that there is not all that much difference. Elites can either lead, having to when revealed selfish, lie about their hypocracy as a socialist, or, when revealed selfish, lie about just being brilliant/lucky, as a capitalist. Probably C+T will outperform S+T. Perhaps the ultimate "synoptic gospel" is that "humans instinctively hate hypocrits".
Reader Comments