There is a book, “Fateful Choices” by Ian Kershaw, that demonstrates your point. It explores the ten key strategic decisions of WWII.When you nationalise assets and resources and severely limit private ownership, mass starvation happen frequently.
Yes there's corruption in all systems but despotism is particularly drawn towards this type of centralised system which is more easily co-opted.
So simplified, true but also true in a general sense.
People who advocate socialism always believe it's going to be different in their form or structure but it is invariably the same result.
Doing the same things and expecting a different result is not a real recipe for success in my view.
Being in chronological order:
England’s decision to fight on in May 1940.
Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union.
Japan’s decision to join the Axis powers.
Mussolini’s decision to invade Greece and not focus on North Africa.
Roosevelt’s decision to approve LendLease.
Stalin’s decision to ignore warnings of the pending German invasion.
Roosevelt and Churchill’s decision to draw up the Atlantic Charter.
The Japanese decision to strike south not north.
Hitler’ decision to declare war on the US.
The Final Solution.
Apart from the historical drama, the key learning I drew from the narrative was this: there were only three decisions made that arose from a collegiate or cabinet discussion. England’s decision to fight on, Roosevelt’s decision to approve LendLease, and their joint decision to approve the Atlantic Charter.
All the others were made in an autocratic or highly centralised system. The three collegiate decisions were the only ones to fall on the right side of history. Each of the remaining seven were derived in a despotic environment. Hitler’s decisions to invade the Soviet Union and to declare war on the US were logical, and based on sound reasoning, but classical failures. Nazi Germany was the archetypal centralised despotic system as Hitler made all the decisions.
My point being: both Churchill and Roosevelt may have proven to be wrong but at least their decisions were made in the context of the push and shove of lively debate and counter views. They were at least, tested.
The others were not.
PS: brilliant book. Buy it.