The following from this week’s issue of The Economist speaks to what my study and observations of the past 30+ years has me concluding:
“…the socialists’ urge for greater control of the firm is rooted in a suspicion of the remote forces unleashed by globalisation. Empowering workers to resist change would ossify the economy. Less dynamism is the opposite of what is needed for the revival of economic opportunity.”
And while I believe that today’s self-described American socialist has good intentions, he/she is possessed by a naiveté that has him/her believing that politicians are even remotely equipped — intellectually or ethically — to direct a country’s allocation of resources: Per the next snippet: emphasis mine…
“Millennial socialism has a refreshing willingness to challenge the status quo. But like the socialism of old, it suffers from a faith in the incorruptibility of collective action and an unwarranted suspicion of individual vim. Liberals should oppose it.”
While free markets, where “individual vim” is least obstructed, aren’t perfect, history proves that they indeed further the advancement of the human condition, while collectivism, at best, constrains it.
The “millennial socialist” would be well-served to dive a bit deeper into world, and economic, history.