I think you are talking about the way you get there. I made no such judgement. I didn't even come into my mind to do that at the cost of others. Seem to be more a reflection of what you think of other people than reality.
The facts are; if I do well others do well. If others do well, then others do well. And so on. Just look at my micro example. It is simplistic granted but that is really how it works.
What Labour needs to do:
Formulate new methods to govern and regulate markets, including policies to try to eradicate abuses of property rights which are distorting markets and promoting inequality.
To reinstate social security for all and to counter the ongoing trend of ever-increasing inequality in income and wealth which is dividing the country and making nonsense of life chances and causing stagnation of the poor in society.
...And that is just for starters.
I think any party should be focussed on that. But rather than bringing the outliers down, I'd like to see bringing the outliers up and remove the state dependencies. Same objective, very different approach to what Corbyns labour wants to do.
I think it's an economic fallacy to suggest that the enrichment of a few people will benefit the rest of the population. If society provides, little opportunity, many people will, and have, become alienated and demotivated, the economy will cease to function correctly with a move away from an equilibrium, to a economy dominated by rent-seeking, often passing private costs on-to the general public, with great disparities in wealth with which to leverage and influence policy. We don't see the great local altruism we saw in the past from the owners of the means of production. However, this wealth is actually being invested in empire building (Globalisation), the money will go where the greatest return is likely.
So, socialism is on the rise because, ultimately, those who for what-ever reason do not fit in with the market model, are not able to find a seat at the table. We live in a world where there are people and groups of people, communities, who, have huge unmet needs, we do live in a democracy and every one should have a voice, so some will turn to socialism..
My only experience of Nationalisation and privatisation is my employer, Royal Mail. The service we/I provide(d) was significantly better before privatisation, since then it's gotten steadily worse.
I think it's equally a fallacy to believe that taxing these people into submission is going to improve the lot of the majority.
Specifically on Venezuela - the article fails to mention the critical role of oil revenues. I can't believe someone could write a story about Venezuela's economy without mentioning oil.
Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves and used high oil prices to subsidize it's socialism project in the 2000s. With the oil price collapse in the last couple of years, clearly the oil revenues vanished and so did the money for these government initiatives.
Jeremy Corbyn is not socialist either, I'm sure he is seen as the devil incarnate who burns babies and their parents hard earned cash when viewed through the prism of Neoliberalism or whatever one wants to call it. However, we are just in the death throw's of neoliberalism and the subsequent change. And reverting back to regulated markets and interventions in the economy to distribute wealth more evenly. As it were.
I never mentioned taxation, I personally believe the concept surrounding money/supply has changed post banking collapse, I'm a great believer in a universal income rather than taxation. However, the current model will eventually lead to political/economic breakdown, it's already happening, hence the Brexit vote, the electorate being divided, social justice and equality are the buzz words atm..
And there's a lot of discussion nowadays about universal income arising out of "end of work" arguments resulting from greater automation.
This link has a good basic introduction:
Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation? (INFOGRAPHIC)