The people love socialism until the extraction of resources for free runs out of other people's money. Chavez stole all the oil from the oil corporations that invested and he extracted that "free" (stolen) resource to give the citizens a free jump out of poverty. But eventually that runs out because the people expectations only rise and the oil price declines and then investment in maintaining the infrastructure declines and then entire thing falls into the abyss. Which is what is coming to Venezuela and socialist South America in general over the next decade.
I like TPTB_'s paragraph as it shows the virtues and excesses of both ends of the spectrum (although only hints at the other side of the spectrum )
I sit with a foot in either camp, both ways overshoot when they have control.
Big multinationals controlled Venezuela's natural resources, mostly moving profits offshore, while the country remained mired in poverty. Then, Chavez swept to power, kicked them out and used the resource wealth to redistribute wealth to all in society. The upper class were of course, horrified. It worked well for a time, but sanctions, corruption, international pressures and a downturn in commodity prices have now largely destroyed the country. It is a pariah with runaway inflation and hard to extract, thick, tar sand oil. There is a high crime rate and corruption but also a concerted international campaign to not only destroy the country but incite the people (see the CIA backed attempted coup of the Chavez govt a few years back). Unfortunately no country exists in a vacuum. The world is interconnected and so a system that works locally may not work at all globally.
Socialism rises to 'help' the common man, often after a period of brutality, corruption or dictatorship (eg Lula in Brazil came after the corruption of Collor and the military dictatorship). Sometimes though, as TPTB alludes to, the leaders succumb to the corruptions etc that they replaced.
Many countries in South America have had roots in leaning to the left since at least the 60's & 70's, and countries like Chile, Argentina etc were relatively successful in being so. Unfortunately, this drew the ire from the other end of the spectrum (neoclassical free markets / blank staters) and of the big corporations, so with planning by the Chicago schoolers and implicit backing of sections of the US these countries were essentially invaded for 'liberalisation' of markets.
Allende was murdered and replaced by US backed Pinochet, Argentina was similarly screwed. What replaced them were death squads, corruption and multinationals that plundered their natural resources. Horribly, as their local economies broke down, the Chicago schoolers thought that only further adherence to their neo classical ideology. It only made things much much worse, and is ironically reminiscent of the Keynesian 'moar QE' crowd today. Chile & Argentina are still yet to recover.