I am replying because I am interested in the topic, but I think it is important to address a point you didn't mention about this idea of communism and patronage creating and perpetuating mediocrity.
This is the definition of patronage (in a political context) on Wikipedia, which is not a source I always use, but their definition in this case is on point.
'Political patronage is the dispensation of favours or rewards such as public office, jobs, contracts, subsidies, prestige or other valued benefits by a patron (who controls their dispensation) to a client.'
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/patronage defines it in a political context as:
The power to control appointments to office or the right to privileges.
‘recruits are selected on merit, not through political patronage’
Synonyms
power of appointment, right of appointment, favouritism, nepotism, partisanship, partiality, preferential treatment

With the above definitions in mind, consider that part of what wins favors from others is the ability to relate, communicate, compromise, and to be innovative, not just at a craft, skill, or in a field of study and practice, but as a human being interacting with others, is what wins favors for some people. I'd argue that if you think skill and vision should be rewarded, those who are good at getting what they want and need from others with their words, their solidarity with others, their community involvement, deserve their rewards more often than you may at first perceive.
Now, I am not a fan of mediocrity, or of the fear of change. But if you look deeper, you may find it isn't mediocrity you are battling. It could, in fact, be the perception of insiders vs. outsiders. Why? Because as you pointed out, appointments were made in Venzuela that did not seem to be given to those who could do the best work in that position, who did not create the greatest good for the greatest number of Venezuelan citizens. But wait...isn't the greatest good for the greatest number a pretty communist leaning principle? and wouldn't the actions taken by those in power that benefited the economy at large (the largest common denominator, the populace, those who make up the country) be communist in principle, even if carried out through capitalism, or some other system? The definition of doing a good job in government that makes the most sense is contributing to a flourishing economy, good disaster response, savvy weighing of contingencies...basically, when most of the country is prospering and improving in a peaceful way, the government is praiseworthy. In a cut and dried view of a for profit market, the highest dollar is the measure of excellence. In a situation where equality does not grant access to the likelihood of being named to office on merit, it becomes every applicant for themselves to gain attention however they can devise. Those who do it on personal relationships have a special genius that is all their own. I do however agree with you that the most competent applicant should get the job, not the one whose aunt knows your brother's uncle, etc. Here's the thing though--someone else got the credibility, as a person, not as a _______(whatever the position was), to be given the position. Unless money or favors changed hands, directly or indirectly, we can assume that they or someone they are associated with lent them considerable chutzpah in the application process, vouched for them, or they endeared themselves to the person in power to such a degree that they were rewarded for it with that person's confidence (however misplaced it may end up being). Networking and inspiring confidence are worthwhile skills. If you don't argue for economic equality, so that everyone's talents and skills have an equal chance to get noticed, aren't you just supporting the system that allows geniuses in poverty to go unnoticed? And if they are geniuses, why can't they figure out a way to get themselves noticed by those in power? Because...money, race, class, gender are all in the way sometimes, or any combination thereof. Huh. But if they already had money, and could buy an audience with the "throne", so to speak, would they have worked half as diligently on their skills and innovations? they wouldn't need to...see how that works? Maybe they would still strive earnestly. I'd like to think so. But chances are, they would have lived a very different life.
I think what I mean is, more bright and innovative thinkers can be discovered if they are granted equal access to education and opportunities--especially for those existing in poverty, this is true. But in a society that smacks of elitism, will they ever be seen? Perhaps the geniuses of art, science, and political planning need to learn a few new tricks, if they are so opposite of mediocre. People skills, EQ, and the ability to reach out energetically and relate with another human being, the ability to listen, and to be fully present, are all worthy talents and skills as well. I think if modern higher education focuses more on the full spectrum of being (a Renaissance type of approach) where communication and architecture are equally embraced, this would change without having to choose a side...I think that diversity, equality, equity, and encouragement of all forms of learning makes up an essential paradigm much needed in government, and social organization. In sum, let's emphasize relating as an important skill at universities and trade schools--such that when someone of great skill arises, they can buy an audience with charisma and relatability instead of money and name dropping. Those geniuses just might be mediocre at something important--communicating with those who will benefit from their expertise, their passion, their vision.

This was along reply! Whew! Thanks for reading it, and thank you for your post. I like this topic and am going to up vote your post, even though we disagree, because:
'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.' --Aristotle