If we look at the newspapers we can see that people are fully worried about economy. It seems that production is what moves the world instead other aspects of the human life as feelings. Looking at the world, we can see that the old Marxian ideas of production as the engine of the human life are getting a larger diffusion in our current societies.
Production did not drive our lives in the old world, but the complexity of the new societies is turning our lives into gears of a big machine. Thinking that human life has the only aim of being productive for the society is the first error of any organizational system. Engineers design the pieces of a machine in order to be manufactured with a certain level of precision that provides a good performance; however, human organizations cannot design the behavior of the people with the required precision (at least today) although the departments of human resources in the enterprises make an excellent work in order to find candidates that fit better the requirements of any job.
This concept of productivity got through social design has existed before in the ancient civilizations but now corporations, as Marx, think that they have a new tool to get better results: scientific method. Of course, good science needs more than a method, it needs good hypotheses too.
On the other hand, the reason why socialists are defenders of the large enterprises although the shares are in the hands of a few rich men or banks is that socialists and those rich men have similar interests and a similar vision of the world: production of wealth moves the world. China has understood this collaborative concept among riches and production well, introducing private property in a socialist society with success. In theory, this concept can be explained in terms of complexity: a planned economy cannot fit well unexpected situations, its complexity due to a large structure is excessively big, and eliminating structure makes the production much more adaptable to any odd phenomenon.
In the European societies, the problem is different. Democratic European societies were not oriented to provide task synchronization but collaboration. Collaboration means agreeing. European politicians are masters of agreements instead of connoisseurs of task planning. The complexity in the occidental societies can be due to a lack of planning, namely, it is due to an excess of uncertainty. The structure of the states in a democracy is usually thought searching for collaboration, this implies that the organizations of the states are made with servants of the politicians instead of expert planners. If this is true, the structures of these states can become diffusers of the uncertainty instead of limiters of it.
In a competitive environment, a certain degree of task synchronization is a must. Although it is always tried to avoid a war with diplomacy before starting it, nobody goes to war with an army of diplomats.
Politics provides the level of uncertainty needed in order that societies can evolve, but any agreement is complex, and the difficulty of the agreement grows immensely with the number of participants, especially when the rules that drive the procedure of agreeing are not clear enough.
Politics only will provide a solution to a crisis if the results of their agreements provide better working procedures (with less uncertainty) that make easier the economic activity and, in general, our lives, instead of only some kind of exchange of resources among different groups of people, that is always the easiest way to reach an agreement although rarely this kind of solution is good for the long-term.