The fatal conceit of socialists is the belief that human conscious planning of the economic system can is better than and can replace the spontaneous unconscious self organization of the free market. Both rationalistic deduction from axiomatic principles and the empiricism of historical economic data have proven this belief false.
There’s been far too many examples to write this off as they thought they were going to create a utopia.
What they got was and is a de-facto war by proxy and sanctions and oils prices driven to the point of no profitability for anybody. Venezuela does have good oil deposits, but they have the heaviest of heavy crude. Costs more to pump and refine.
"The difference between what is seen and what is not seen was often noticed by the old economists. What is not seen is the infinite variety of individual transactions and decisions which, in a civilized society, within the framework of just and well-known laws, insure the advantage not only of the individual concerned, but of the community, and provide that general body of well-being constituting the wealth of nations. All this is blotted out by an over-riding State control, however imposing some of its manifestations may be. It is the vital creative impulse that that I deeply fear the doctrines and policy of the socialist Government have destroyed, or are rapidly destroying, in our national life. Nothing that they can plan and order and rush around enforcing will take its place. They have broken the mainspring, and until we get a new one the watch will not go." - Winston Churchill, speech, House of Commons, October 28, 1947.
Agree, but IMHO it goes farther than this. It's not just that socialists have this ‘fatal conceit’, it's that socialism attracts the conceited. Fundamentally, having money and ‘stuff’ is a very big motivator in the world, but it isn't the biggest of the motivators. The two biggest are love and ego. Often these two lead down different paths. Love, for instance, can lead one to give up their life for those they love. Ego that is unchecked by spirituality, ethics, and love, is too often the cause of suffering and the loss of life.
Socialism offers a world construct that is very appealing to those who want/need to be ‘saviors’ and want to be historic. Being historic is theoretically a way of achieving immortality, and for those driven by ego this is the big prize. In Communist and Socialist societies, there are the unwashed masses, and the ‘leaders’. This is as much defined by hierarchy as any nation governed by royalty. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - except the new boss claims to be the antithesis of the old boss. Being the leader in this type of political structure puts you much further up the totem pole than any elected position in a democracy/republic.
I'm sure Hillary, Kerry, and the rest of this ilk have not thought this through, especially since to do so would challenge their internal self-o-meter. It is, nonetheless, true, and if one looks at the comments people like Hillary and Kerry have made over the years, when their mask slips, it is clear that they see themselves as something apart from and better than the rest of us. Hugo Chavez likely saw himself as a great savior, and probably never confronted the reality of what his actions were doing to the people of his country.
If ideologically consistent, the socialist ‘leaders’ would be living in modest housing, and the citizens they say they want to ‘help’ would be in their palatial government ‘leader’ estates. That obviously is not what happens. Every once in awhile you will find a socialist ‘leader’ who actually lives by their own rules. Most often this is not the case (one need look no further than Queen Hillary herself for confirmation of this).