«I didn't suspect that Babaryka is also a proponent of socialism»

I was quite struck by one moment in Viktar Babaryka's interview with «Zerkalo».

«Like the idea of socialism. The idea of socialism is sound, but, unfortunately, a lot of blood was shed during its implementation. But the idea itself is good.»

Phew. I confess, it's unexpected. And not because Babaryka is a banker. I am precisely an opponent of this 'group identity' so beloved by the left, where if you are black, an immigrant, gay, a millionaire, Jewish, a woman, and so on — then you must think exactly as 'prescribed' for that group. I admit that even a banker can be a sincere supporter of socialism. After all, Russian merchants and American bankers helped the Bolsheviks.

But Babaryka's words sounded to me like discussions from the mid-1980s, when, on the wave of perestroika, people began to clear Lenin's 'bright name' — saying that Stalin spoiled everything, but under Lenin, there would have been true socialism.

I'm just curious, where and when did the 'correct' implementation of this idea take place? Where and when, over one hundred and twenty years of attempts to implement this idea, did it lead to something other than the Gulag, executions, confiscation of property, shortages, degradation, and poverty?

And don't give me legends and myths about socialism in modern Sweden: there is no socialism there; the number of billionaires per capita is one of the highest in the world. They did indeed start building elements of socialism in the 1970s, nationalizing industries — but this quickly led to decline, and the Social Democrats themselves, who were then in power and carried out these reforms, admitted it was a mistake.

Today's European states are, without a doubt, capitalism, only with strong social guarantees (which, by the way, are increasingly struggling to withstand reality).

However, I believe that the ideas of real socialism are truly eternal. The idea of equality of outcomes — regardless of work, talent, and effort — will always be popular. The idea of envy towards the more fortunate, the successful — will always be popular. The idea of 'take everything and divide it' — will always be popular.

But the problem is that even if everyone is given an unconditional income (money for nothing) — the recipients will not be satisfied. They will resent why they were only given 2,000 euros a month (just like that, no conditions), while others have millions. Because people who have money for nothing and do nothing — degrade and become corrupt. Regardless of whether they are poor or aristocrats.

I do not rule out that in the coming decades, some developed country (perhaps even the USA) might fall into genuine socialism, of the Cuban and Venezuelan variety. Because socialism is the dream of the average person. There are always many people who choose equality over freedom, stability over development, collective over individual.

I simply didn't suspect that Babaryka is also a supporter of this 'sound idea'.

• 24
• 3
• 1
• 6
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 1