HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AFTER SO MANY MONUMENTAL FAILURES, STILL THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO PROPOSE COMMUNIST SOCIALISM AND THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT IT?

It is logical that one wonders, how is it possible that after so many monumental failures, there are still people who propose communist socialism and people who support it? Mexico has just taken a false step.

The mass responded to the same fallacious, populist and emotional discourse that demagogues have used from Hitler to the present, including Castro and Chávez, among others, in Latin America.

Popular support is explained by ignorance and conceptual simplicity. Although a personal experience is not valid to prove anything, at least it serves as a clue to formulate hypotheses; in several years living in an environment full of Mexicans, generally honest, hard-working and kind people, I have formed the idea that they are also very little informed about contemporary history and the aforementioned "conceptual simplicity"; they live in their immediate surroundings and the rest seems to be indifferent to them.

It has been rightly said that democracy, as we practice it in modernity, is a failed act, because it leaves the power of decision of something as fundamental as the direction of a nation, in the hands of the less fit.

Democracy should be qualified, giving more votes to those who have greater attributes, because it is demonstrated that the decisions taken by minority groups of well-informed subjects of the subject, with broader perspectives, better education, etc. they are better than those due to indiscriminate mass groupings.

I understand that in expressing this opinion I expose myself to derision; the issue of egalitarian democracy is one of the taboos of our times; but it is a valid point of view and based on scientific arguments.

The other aspect: the reason why people, many of them enlightened and intelligent, assume the socio-communist creed, is easier to understand.

Communism, socialism, left or whatever you want to call it, ceased to be an ideology in the strict sense of the term, to become a resource to achieve power. A certain famous communist made me look very clear years ago. I spoke to him of my disenchantment after having made one of my trips through socialist countries, in which I saw nothing of the offered "workers' paradise", but quite the opposite: misery, repression, social inequality. After half a bottle of whiskey was consumed and the mask was stripped, he confessed: "Ruben, I do not believe in that scabbard, but the speech is very good to get to power. socialism, people like you and me will be the cream. "

And here the two aspects of the analysis are crossed: using the concepts, procedures, etc., typical of the "left", the political manipulators gain the backing of the poorly enlightened mass, desperate for their perceived misery in contrast to the bombast of the upper classes and primitive thinking. They accede to power ... and the harvest comes.