Competition is an extremely useful thing, including in ideology. You always want a strong opponent who will shake your foundations and send you to search for the next knowledge. Without it, the risk of stagnation, "intellectual swamp" is high.

Personally, we adhere to the center-right agenda.

However, we do not have enough strong "left-wing" ideologues who can correctly justify the participation of the state. Although it is really critical in a number of very important areas. Under the "left" flag, we have populists with an outdated or superficial idea of what they offer.
However, there are very strong arguments for state participation. Here are some examples.

1) Privatization.
The current arguments against it are "better a state monopoly than a private one".

A more correct argument is information asymmetry.

With high centralization and imperfect institutions, privatization can lead to the Russian version, when the main assets will be bought by a narrow group of people close to the government.

2) Open trade and country specialization.

The current argument against it is "Russians and Uzbeks will crush our products".

A more correct argument is the importance of the "complexity" of the economy.

"Simple "economies with a specialization in raw materials are limited in income growth, because unique"knowledge networks" are not formed. In simple words, those who produce equipment can also sew trousers, but it is unlikely that the opposite is true.

3) non-Interference in the market.

The current argument against it is "the state must control and plan the economy".

A more correct argument is the irrationality of agents and the effect of scale.

Behavioral Economics presents many cognitive errors that make agents irrational – a tendency to overestimate their knowledge, react more sharply to losses, and more. At a time of crisis, private players and citizens can further exacerbate it; at a time of boom, they can create a "bubble".

In addition, many infrastructure solutions are unaffordable for a single company, and the level of contractual capacity between them is still low.

4) Less spending on education.

The current argument against it is "education is a basic human right".

A more correct argument is the curve of formation of "soft skills".
The most important period of human capital development is from early childhood to the transition age. If you miss this point, then the tendency to education weakens further. As they say, "A fool at forty is a fool indeed."

5) Deprivation of support for the poor.

The current argument against it is "the level of poverty is high".
A more correct argument is "tunnel poverty".

Many people are locked in a state of poverty and little depends on them personally. Marriage assortativeness leads to the creation of a family only in its stratum. When parents are poor, they tend to have more children. Lack of income at all levels leads to a lack of nutrition, living conditions and education for children. Because of this, they lose out on income in adulthood and marry their strata – again, marital assortativeness.

***

Of course, we can argue with these arguments. But that would be a completely different level of discussion.
In addition, two more thoughts about the "lefts."

First, the "lefts" are often internationalists. Planning the whole world is more convenient than planning a single country. And people have the same problems - it doesn't matter if you are Kazakh or Mexican. The proletariat, the poor, women, the faces of the so-called "Gay" are the same in all countries.

Therefore, the "social democrats". Democrats, that is.

Kazakh "left" nationalists still do not quite understand where the gravity will bring them. At some point, the understanding will come that you cannot create conditions only for “your own” at a common expense. And conflicts will begin.

Second, the "lefts" – are romantics, revolutionaries. Ideas are always good - the fight against the "oppressors", poverty, inequality. Songs always take the soul ("Bella chao"). Che Guevara, Obama, Reinert, "Professor" from "Money Heist".
The "Right wings" are boring, rational, cold. They do not sing songs, do not die romantically, they leave you alone with your problems.

The whole ambush is in the substitution of concepts. The idea and the tools for its implementation are not the same thing.

Ideas of "lefts" CANNOT BE ACHIEVED with "left" instruments at all.

"Left" ideas are consistently implemented ONLY by "right" instruments. It's paradoxical.

It's like with our parents. When they care about us, they never talk about it out loud.