It’s really the same story isn’t it? We have problems we want to solve, but we (the Left primarily, but certainly not exclusively) want to take a shortcut. So we call forth Spirits, whether they be broomsticks or boomsticks, to get things done Faster.

And then we find that they are out of our control, and disaster beckons.

Most smart people are idiots. I say that as a smart person.

Agreed.

https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth

Assuming the best of motives among the modern central planning mongers – which I think is overly generous – the problem remains one of knowledge; they don’t have it and can’t get it.

Hayek points out that the person most interested in the outcome of an economic transaction – the one who has skin in the game – is also the most likely to have the means and motive for acquiring the knowledge to make the optimum decision.

Like their central-planning cohorts in the former Soviet Bloc, technocrats in the West operate under the same hubris; that they have a better grasp of what is needed than the masses in the great unwashed. Even someone as enthusiastic in his defense of the West as Steven Pinker makes this mistake. His “Enlightenment Now!” is a tour de force in the technical defense of the Enlightenment which comprises the first half of the book. The second half, a philosophical defense, is less compelling in part because he doesn’t understand the role of individual initiative in positive outcomes. Like Cass Sunstein, he thinks that individuals need a technocratic ‘Nudge’ to get the best out of our personal decision making.

Frankly, though, I think that, contrary to conventional conservative wisdom, Socialism actually does work as intended. If there is a better system for destroying the middle class (with its moderating effect on cultural movement) and aggregating wealth and power in the hands of a chosen few, I have yet to see it.

It’s past time we stopped giving the moral high ground to the ‘idealists’ who want to ‘actualize’ the ‘revolution’. As O’Brien pointed out, ” One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

I’m curious to know your opinion of the book by Orlando Figes entitled A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.

Back in the day when I read everything Heinlein wrote (which probably inoculated me against the progressive leftism of the Sixties and thereafter), I agreed with you.
He was writing as a member of the military between the World Wars, and a staunch American patriot.

Today, in critique of that idea, all you have to remember is that John F. Kerry is a veteran.
Pfui.

https://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/career-advice/military-transition/famous-veteran-robert-a-heinlein.html

Heinlein was finally admitted [to Annapolis] in 1925 and graduated in 1929 with the Naval equivalent to a B.A. in Naval Engineering. The aircraft carrier USS Lexington became the new ensign’s home away from home where he operated radio communications equipment and coordinated the carrier’s planes. Heinlein’s captain, Ernest J. King, was destined to serve as the Chief of Naval Operations during World War II. Between 1933 and 1934, Heinlein served on the USS Roper and earned the rank of lieutenant. After surviving tuberculosis and chronic sea sickness, he was given early retirement in 1934.
…
When World War II broke out, Heinlein attempted to reenlist with the Navy but was denied. In order to support the war effort, he began working as a civilian engineer at the Naval Air Experiment Center in Philadelphia. He was able to secure work for fellow writers Isaac Asimov and L. Sprague de Camp. All three worked on ship and aircraft repairs while discussing their ideas about the future.

Coincidentally, Kerry was also a Navy Lieutenant (Wikipedia).
“Kerry served as a Lieutenant in the United States Navy during the period from 1966 to 1970.”

FWIW, the fictional British naval hero, Horatio Hornblower, was also afflicted with a queasy stomach, which is not conducive to one’s well-being in a warship, but he somehow managed not to let that become a handicap.

I believe the Founders, all well read and shrewd judges of humanity, certainly could imagine such corruption. The Constitution has “guardrails” to mitigate it.
What they might not have envisioned is the corruption of the Judges, who have torn down the rails and kicked them over the cliff.

except that Foster was wrong… they didnt “put” anyone in place… it was a mess from the time of the revolution onwards… maybe he is referring to later on once power was consolidated… but its a political system, and their definition of best and smart were not the same as a meritocratic choice of best and smart…

these were political committees running factories without heads… though there are many books all around as to things, many of them are down right wrong… famous, and wrong too… in the early years it was really bad because no one was in charge… the political committees were about politics… the workers were going to starve unless they got things going… factions were constantly at war…

later… lies and errors propagated the system without any means to correct them or develop decent numbers… so even if they had magical formula for plans that would work, GIGO ruled the day… garbage numbers in garbage numbers out…

personally i get tired of many of the books i read from later dates… even the most famous ones… they are accepted as correct, when any browsing of earlier works that were more honest would disprove them… i have not particularly read Foster so i cant comment directly or show example of what he got right or what he got wrong…. but the conflicting stories of how things are or were are legendary in terms of the soviet machine, apologists, and so on.

Its really hard to get this stuff because so much conflicts if you dont read or havent read a lot of it over time (and had family or friends)