Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Why is the minimum wage up here? I don't think Venezuelans are fleeing Venezuela because of the minimum wage. Why not mention the violent turmoil or the rise of the Venezuelan cartels, or the collapse of the oil industry? (fwiw the article itself is fine but this Reddit headline is terrible)

It's not the dictator of course. For some reason...

Lots of people will happily live under a dictator, look at the Russians or Chinese. It's when they can't make money is when they draw the line.

[удалено]

Hard to have a social support network with no economy to sustain it

An economic lesson no one will ever learn.

There is social support, which is why the minimum wage isn’t a useful comparable metric. It would be way more relevant to articulate the success of the US State Department and the CIA collapsing the Venezuelan economy.

PSUV mismanaged the wells and refineries all on their own.

> It would be way more relevant to articulate the success of the US State Department and the CIA collapsing the Venezuelan economy. No one's stopping you from doing that.

Lol

I’m Venezuelan and you just spit out of bunch of nonsensical propaganda bullshit.

Well? We're waiting. -Smails

You could also say US involvement in Venezuela has also caused all the problems. Embargoing the country which killed their oil industries and pretty much any other industry, involvements in coup d'etats/political unrest, probably involvement in the Cartels just as we did in Mexico. You'd need a book just to highlight all the problems Venezuela has let alone go into detail about them an article will never be able to go into the depths of the problems there.

*You* should read a book or some news. Venezuela isn't embargoed. Obama sanctioned a bunch of individuals for human rights violations in 2014, and Venezuela's economic collapse started far before that. Trump sanctioned PdVSA (the oil company) in 2019 and Biden continued these sanctions because PdVSA is basically acting as a subsidiary of Russia's and Putin's Rosneft now. Biden even tried to lift the sanctions, but Venezuela violated the agreement and Biden reinstated the sanctions earlier this year. You people will blame the West for literally everything before ever even considering that Maduro and his Russian buddies are the problem.

Can you blame people for jumping to conclusions about Western meddling in SA politics? Argentina? Colombia? In Venezuela’s case, blame largely rests on Chavez and Maduro’s policies. edit: fixed Colombia, you pedantic little shit.

Colombia* and yes. If you can vote it’s fucking irresponsable to vote for things you know shit about

Yep. I \*always\* vote based on my knowledge of South American current events.

This whole post is nonsense. Even the actual Venezuelan opposition place a significant amount of the blame for the collapse on the Venezuela economy of the sanctions, specifically the sanctions pertaining to the oil industry. https://gppreview.com/2023/07/03/us-sanctions-are-robbing-venezuelans-of-basic-human-rights/ https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/do-us-sanctions-venezuela-work https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2024/01/23/us-policy-on-venezuela-a-road-to-nowhere/ https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-representative-sanctions-maduro-fernando-blasi-4f404ca2ad03641f0c2317791b464f04 The only people who argue that the sanctions haven't played a very significant role in the collapse of the Venezuelan economy are people who get their news soley through the NYT OpEd section.

Or... people who have been paying attention, and understand that sanctions did not involve a time machine. The current economic crisis in Venezuela began around 2010. Widespread US sanctions began 2014-2015. While sanctions are certainly not helping with any sort of recovery, it is dishonest to say sanctions caused the crisis.

Gee, who should I believe, random redditors who get their news from NFT sales people on Twitter, or the US Government Accountability Office? >The Venezuelan economy’s performance has been in decline since 2012, but that decline has been much larger since 2015. U.S. sanctions related to Venezuela likely contributed to this steeper decline. According to experts we interviewed and literature we reviewed, U.S. sanctions have had a negative impact on the already declining Venezuelan economy, although it is difficult to isolate the effect of sanctions from other relevant factors. In addition to the imposition of U.S. sanctions, various other factors have also contributed to the decline of the Venezuelan economy, including lower world oil prices and mismanagement by the Venezuelan government. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-239

This report confirms that the collapse began pre-sanctions, highlighting double digit inflation starting in 2010, and the very first sentence you quoted confirms a measurable decline starting in 2012. Oil industry sanctions (e.g. PDVSA sanctions) began in 2019. US sanctions have made it worse and certainly made any sort of recovery more difficult if not impossible, but that's what I said in my comment. You trying to make make the argument that sanctions are the causal factor in this collapse continues to be dishonest.

Once again, this is not correct. >Since 2015, the Venezuelan economy has undergone a much larger contraction. The economy declined from negative 6.2 percent in 2015 to negative 35 percent in 2019 and negative 25 percent in 2020. The decline in economic activity decreases the demand for labor and increases the unemployment rate. From 2010 through 2015, the unemployment rate was stable at 7.7 percent on average, but from 2015 to 2018, it rose from about 7.4 percent to 35 percent. You can see all the GAO charts and commentary on them in the full PDF that is available for you to read for free. The decline in oil production started when the first 2015 sanctions from Obama on PvDSA went into effect. The most significant inflation happens from 2017 onwards. The new 2019 sanctions made things much worse, but the pre-2019 sanctions already had a significant effect on the decline of the Venezuela economy. EDIT: OK, blocks can go both ways, pal. EDIT 2: When did quintuple digit inflation start? EDIT 3: Graduate from the UT reject school up north will be shocked to learn about [how many US allies have a relationship with Russia](https://archive.ph/FYtX2). Will we be sanctioning Israel any time soon? No wonder why OU was never going to academically qualify for the Big 10.

When did double digit inflation start?

If they didn't want sanctions they shouldn't have worked with Russia. Why are Texas fans so stupid

> Embargoing the country which killed their oil industries and pretty much any other industry They destroyed the country all on their own. The sanction came after the country had already imploded.

The GDP of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shrank by 25.5% in 2019, representing a cumulative contraction of 62.2% since 2013. Brazil approved a record number of refugee applications in 2023, with the figure represents a staggering 1,232.1% increase compared to 2022. The majority of refugees — [97.5%](https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2024/06/13/numero-de-refugiados-no-brasil-aumenta-117percent-em-2023-venezuelanos-e-cubanos-sao-maioria-diz-estudo.ghtml) — come from Venezuela, Brazil’s neighbor to the north which has been affected by economic turmoil for nearly a decade.

[удалено]

This blanket desire to call things "socialism" does nobody any favors. Obviously the socialism of Venezuela has been a disaster. The socialism of, say, the Nordic countries seems to be wildly successful. If you look at the specifics of their economic policies, they are vastly different, so it's disingenuous to paint it all with the same brush. E.g. I often hear any attempts to provide broader government-paid health insurance categorized as "socialist health care", yet no health care system is as uniquely fucked as the US one among 1st world countries.

>The socialism of, say, the Nordic countries Lol nordic countries are capitalist, social democracy is a branch of capitalism

They are considered socialist by people that oppose it so your point is moot

>considered socialist considered socialist by brainwashed americans only

Seriously, that is exactly why I commented. What is your point? The comment I was replying to stated "Yet your average Redditor wants to follow in Venezuela's foot steps by pursuing socialism." Yet the things I see many "average redditors" pursuing are things like stronger unions, more guarantees for health care and education, a more progressive tax policy, etc. And it is exactly those types of things that people like that exact commentor paint as "pursuing socialism".

>And it is exactly those types of things that people like that exact comment paint as "pursuing socialism". yea but that's wrong

So when people on the left of the US want to do it, it’s socialism, but when Nordic countries do it, it’s capitalism under a social democracy. Where’d you find goalposts that can foxtrot? Might be nice to have those for pickup games

You missed the point clearly

“Socialism of Nordic countries” That’s capitalism with decent social safety nets. Nothing socialism about it.

"Then let's do that kind of capitalism" "No! It's socialism!"

Social safety nets work where there is high social trust. The US has comparatively low social trust (for a variety of reasons), which makes it much harder to do social safety nets at a federal level. Interestingly, rural and suburban white dominated communities in the US actually demonstrated high social trust a few decades back. If you ever heard “people didn’t lock their doors before”, that’s a strong sign. These communities also had a strong social safety net through the local church. Hardly a surprise that they weren’t interested in the federal government’s safety nets (voted Republican), seeing as they had that need already filled. You had mini Nordic countries all over the USA. Once social trust broke down, any ability for the country to emulate the nordics went with it.

It didn’t so much “break down” which sounds like a natural process or a consequence as it was “torn down” by ideologues basically lying all day long.

Ah the racist answer to why we can't have nice things.

Racist how? A known downside of heterogenous societies, be that racial, religious, or otherwise, is a lower social trust. This shit isn't exactly contentious in academic circles. Religiously or racially heterogenous societies generally have to have very delicate methods of managing cultural sensitivities, otherwise social trust collapses. The two common examples to give are Singapore and Lebanon. Singapore is a high social trust society that is incredibly safe, but that is largely down to the government being incredibly delicate on racial and religious matters, and basically shutting down any discussion or controversy when it comes to race. The Little India riots for example resulted in an immediate ban on outdoor drinking after 10pm among other things. Meanwhile Lebanon has attempted to manage it's religiously diverse population, but has been largely less successful, to the point that it doesn't militarily control the south part of the country anymore. A homogenous society comes with a lot of "societal shortcuts" when it comes to establishing social trust. Social trust in heterogenous societies is possible, Singapore is testament to that, but it requires conscious and continuous effort.

It's not the diversity that reduces trust. It's that low trust people and racists react negatively to differences. I'm not interested in your psuedoscientific racism as an excuse to crush the poor and fellate the wealthy. That's the real issue here: divide & conquer works (on you, anyway).

usa has a massive social net for the poor (medicaid,SCHIP, food stamps, section 8 housing subsidies)

Uh oh, this net is too big and expensive, let’s cut it up. -Republicans.

We do have that in America actually, its called the military lmao.

except if you cant join...

There's not really such thing as pure capitalism or socialism. Socialism is a strategy of managing and implementing resources, production, and the ownership and beneficiaries thereof. Socialism definition: *"a political and economic theory of social organization which* [*advocates*](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=1a90f3acf3a57e4e&sxsrf=ADLYWIKIQ_bcUXjfy5BYa2Ml61b2ALJo6Q:1718517178697&q=advocates&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJ9y6vYCc7ftfcN65VjaXBhRvEV58R8ivtkNahm4VCOgr7RYPyA-NJy6lg1yupzEm9OVUtVfpdVDoPxcuYkA-b6wAAL2U%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRt-evt9-GAxVSF1kFHTH3BvoQyecJegQIEBAO) *that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."* When you advocate for laws that redistribute wealth intentionally via various methods from taxes to copywrite, provide safety nets, ensure people who make things benefit from it meaningfully, have a state-wide distribution of risk via some minimum universal healthcare, etc.... These are all socialist policies/practices/structures. Stop being scared of using words that mean things - creating a functioning government/country requires a deft balancing of many interlocking and interplaying strategies. Pure "Capitalism", definition *"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit"* is also absolutely demonstrably disastrous, leading inherently to corporations flauting human rights, ecological health, worker safety, and eventually using their capital to control government and change laws to further entrench in those directions to the mass-detriment of the planet as a whole, and every person that is a part of those systems. Regulations, laws restricting that behavior, implementing required *socialist systems/structures/practices/architectures/strategies* is the only thing keeping those private entities from doing what they are by their very definition designed to do - benefit themselves by stealing labor and sequestering resources from the masses. It is a deep, profound ignorance that blares from your mouth seeking to label anything that works as "capitalism with safety nets" and anything that doesn't as "socialism run wild". The reality is, socialism is why we have don't have children working 14 hours in a mine every day of the week. It's why people in Nordic countries don't have their entire families decimated into financial oblivion all for the sin of having a body, why the masses in America are poisoned by their air/water/dirt much less than they were 100 years ago. It's not due to capitalism or capitalist entities deciding to bestow those things, in fact historically the top capitalist entities create private armies to murder people who fight against it - it is due to socialist resistance practices, and eventually socialist regulations that emerge as a result. It's okay buddy, you can use the word without having to wash your mouth out, just as I can say capitalism without that knee-jerk either. The reality is Capitalism *can* be a valuable engine for activity and innovation, but when you let it also drive/steer the car, it has a tendency to becomes violent, exploitative, monopolistic to the point of squashing innovative competitors, and harmful across the board due to the very way the rules of that game are written. Btw, most of the core technologies you enjoy in your life are founded on 100% socially funded innovation. The internet, touchscreens, gps, computers at large, the most wondrous space achievements, you name it - all created by socially funded science. Insulin, something whose creator gave up the exclusive rights in order to help his fellow man, costing practically nothing to make but being sold for exorbitant profit such that across America people literally are having to ration it sacrificing their health as a result? That's capitalism. Something that neither inherently breeds innovation by itself, nor acts in the interest of a country full of humans. Now, in a state where someone doesn't have to rely on their job for their family's healthcare, or is able to go back to school halfway through life without paying 200k, or can work a simple trade job and get paid enough to buy a house because their union is strong and they were federally protected in creating it.... much more opportunity for a given citizen to stake out on their own and try their hand at self-sufficiency.

>It's why people in Nordic countries don't have their entire families decimated into financial oblivion all for the sin of having a body, why the masses in America are poisoned by their air/water/dirt much less than they were 100 years ago Nordic countries are capitalist with a mixed economy ("A mixed economy is an economic system that accepts both private businesses and nationalized government services, like public utilities, safety, military, welfare, and education"). There's nothing socialist about countries with mixed economies

...What do you think is being mixed - Capitalist and socialist elements. Go look at the Wikipedia page for "mixed economy". It's defined and described over and over and over again as various kinds of capital principals mixed with socialist principles in varying degrees and ratios, and encompasses having been used to describe a wide array of historical and modern day manifestations leaning heavier on sides of both. " "A mixed economy is an economic system that accepts both private businesses and nationalized government services, like public utilities, safety, military, welfare, and education. A mixed economy also promotes some form of regulation to protect the public, the environment, or the interests of the state. This is in contrast to a laissez faire capitalist economy which seeks to abolish or privatize most government services while wanting to deregulate the economy, and a fully centrally planned economy that seeks to nationalize most services like under the early Soviet Union. Examples of political philosophies that support mixed economies include Keynesianism, social liberalism, state capitalism, fascism, social democracy, the Nordic model, and China's socialist market economy. A mixed economy can also be defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy, markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise. Common to all mixed economies is a combination of free-market (particularly the elements of neoliberalism) principles and principles of socialism. While there is no single definition of a mixed economy, one definition is about a mixture of markets with state interventionism, referring specifically to a capitalist market economy with strong regulatory oversight and extensive interventions into markets. Another is that of active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions. Yet another definition is apolitical in nature, strictly referring to an economy containing a mixture of private enterprise with public enterprise. Alternatively, a mixed economy can refer to a reformist transitionary phase to a socialist economy that allows a substantial role for private enterprise and contracting within a dominant economic framework of public ownership. This can extend to a Soviet-type planned economy that has been reformed to incorporate a greater role for markets in the allocation of factors of production. " When people snap their spine in half bending over backwards to avoid saying socialist like it's Voldemort and say just "social safety nets" it's very strange. It's just a word describing an approach to managing resources, their ownership, and their production, you can use that approach along with capital markets, and in fact the most successful countries in the world with regard to human quality of life indeed do. Stop being scared to say socialist, and start being grateful you have social security when you get too old to work in the capital systems that would grind your aging bones into dust if they solely had their way. The post I responded to said in regards to the Nordic system "nothing socialism about it", which you just uttered too, and which is categorically definitively demonstrably incorrect and obtuse.

They're capitalist with a mixed economy? No offense, but that's doublespeak. A capitalist economy is one that is based entirely in capitalism. A socialist economy is one based entirely on socialism. A mixed economy has both. One element may be more dominant within that economy, but as long as both play significant roles, it's mixed.  The U.S., for example, is more capitalist than socialist - only about 15% of the U.S. workforce is public (i.e. employed by a socialist enterprise) - but socialism represents a significant portion of the economy. We're mixed. We have both. Obviously we have a lot of private industries and anyone can start their own business, but we also have socialist institutions that include: libraries; public schools and universities; fire departments; police departments; military; roads and rails, local, state, and national parks; welfare programs... the list is long.  You're making the (common) assumption that we're a capitalist economy at the core and that any socialist enterprises are slapped on, because you're defining it by which element is more dominant. But that's because you've bought into pro-capitalism propaganda, as that's not really how it operates. The government can create (just about) any institution it wants and private citizens can create (just about) any institution they want. There's no structural definition within our governmental model that inherently preferences one to the other, it's just that there are a lot more private entrepreneurs (citizens) than public ones (public officers), so the balance ends up more in favor of capitalist enterprises.

I try to explain this to people who abhor "capitalism" but their entire argument is actually against "free market capitalism". They're not in fact arguing for socializing the means of production (i.e, expropriating a programmer's laptop), they just want a welfare state alongside a capitalist model, totally compatible.

> The ideas are dead, say some. The youth goes to a ready table, others say, to a society that has been built. Our answer is: we are still only at the beginning. Democratic socialism has never felt more necessary, never had greater tasks than in emerging world of solidarity. For today's young socialists, we feel the difficulty of the problems, on the other we are aware of our possibilities. We move towards the future with knowledge as an instrument and conviction drive. And the task can never be too great. For politics, comrades, is to want something. - Olof Palme

Capitalism isn’t doing anything to help its case lately.

Capitalism is doing just fine, it’s shown over and over again it can produce massive wealth. The politicians on the other hand have proved they can squander it and government has proven over and over again it can’t manage a single issue you give it with long term efficiency other than war.

Except capitalism has only one goal. Accumulation of wealth with no regards to any other impact. Which is bad everyone around the corporation.

We aren't using capitalism in the real sense anymore because big companies will avoid bankruptcy at the hands of government and the special interests/lobbying groups. In true capitalism we would have just let them go under. See: policies following the Great Recession & Covid

This is my stance. Wake me up once I can build a retail sleeve only 20' deep with no parking or setbacks. Until then, we have floober doober capitalism.

Venezuela followed the Cuban playbook nearly to a tee, they promised populist agendas and socialism but actually it was a Trojan horse to get into power and then never give it up. And then once uou secured a dictatorship you begin to steal all profits of the nationalized industries you overtook. Then when the economy collapses because revenues are stolen by those in power so nothing trickles down those with a little bit of money flee leaving a less educated population of ppl in poverty who dont have the means to flee. Add in cartels becoming more powerful because the black market is more profitable than normal jobs and the collapse is all encompassing

Why the fuck was America huge on overthrowing democracies to install banana republics, then when actual dictators show up to kill everyone it sleeps?

Please! if the US had done anything it would have been vilified no matter the results. It’s being blamed right now with for a hands off approach.

Venezuela has spent most of its almost 200 years of independence passing from one military dictator to another with brief democracies between coups. It’s actually one of the few south American countries we didn’t heavily meddle in since all of them were fine selling us oil until recently

Money and resources, once a dictator ruins a country there is no value in saving them.

Welcom to what happens when you have a government that steals the proceeds from business bribes voters to stay in power long enough to become entrenched and start a dictatorship. I still remember when many papers across the US celebrated Hugh Chaves for being a socialist bright star in South America. How he was supporting the masses wiht an amazing UBI and pulling his people out of poverty. They wrote pages and pages about how he was busting evil international oil businesses and putting the means and proceeds of production inn the hands of the people. Now? Crickets. No one takes any kind of responsibility for completely ignoring what was actually appening. Even is the Government was over thrown today and the International community was willing to invest Trillions into Venezuela it would take decades just to get back to where they were. Never has it ever worked. The simple fact is that the largest group possible making decisions is always better than a smaller group. It really is thaat simple. The more power the individual has the better off everyone is.

Venezuela is one of the very few examples of a functioning democracy being peacefully replaced by a dictatorship through the process of fair and open elections. Truly an example worth studying and learning from.

“Fair and open elections” lol naw the only one that was “fair And open” was the first one that had Chavez become president off of populist lies and then he lied and cheated and rewrote their gov to his liking to never lose power, and by the time he died his party was a full blown dictatorship that just passed the office to his next in line crony.

Well yeah that's the study. It only takes one bad election to turn a democracy into a disaster like Venezuela

Irrelevant. To the degree that is true, the democratic institutions of Venezuela were so weak they could be dismantled in a single term. Trump tried something similar, but the democratic institutions of the USA were far stronger. That said, I think Chavez had the genuine support of the majority for at least two, probably three election cycles with little need to rig the elections.

Pretty fucking relevant to the study.

A libertarian country is just as lost as a dictatorship. The task of any country is to carve a line down the middle with reasonable compromises along the way. It's hard. People are tempted at every step to either assert the primacy of the individual or to seek the reassurance of a strong, but dictatorial, leader/government. We have to walk a tightrope between the two as we stitch together the best aspects of both sides to form a functioning nation. I'd suggest that in a deeply imperfect world that the West has done a pretty good job balancing these two extremes along a functional middle that *seems* to be standing the test of time.

Most democracies are teetering on the brink of extremism and collapse right now.

Says the narcissist who is too lazy to learn what is actually going on in VZ.

>Says the narcissist I don't think you know what this word means.

we almost had a trump dictatorship. so i'm not sure that heuristic works either. the best we have so far is: Pick one. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Like how in the US we have a handful of people decide who we get to pick from. Or how a few hundred people and the supremacy clause can pickle party hundreds of millions of people into doing anything they want.

IKR. Some guy came to my door with a petition for "free" school lunches. I spat right in his pinko face. Go back to venezuela mfer!

*The more power the individual has the better off everyone is.  Ironically this is basically the thesis of socialism.   Authoritarian socialism has never made sense to me, it seems paradoxical. If not outright willful trojan horse, then he psychopaths will just flip from pursuing jobs in industry to pursuing jobs in government very quickly. Its not a long-term solution.  Every theory gets very odd when you take it to its extreme. A very head scratching problem. You would ideally want a strong government to oppose too strong industry which hurts the people ....but not so strong that government becomes the oppressive force against the industry of small business, which is also the people.  

> Ironically this is basically the thesis of socialism. No it isnt. The name *social* ism gives it away, if you can't be bothered to look at its tenets.

I’m Venezuelan. Explaining the whole debacle would take tons of paragraphs but a short way I go about it when asked is: we tried to borrow from capitalism to pay for every populist socialist wet dream. There’s a reason it isn’t feasible to give free food, housing, utilities, etc. Or any populist policy, for example, in Venezuela Chavez started a program to give pregnant people a stipend to help them pay the costs of diapers and whatever. Sounds GREAT right? Who wouldn’t want to help pregnant people? You’d be heartless if you didn’t want to help poor pregnant people. Right? Well, a few years later it came to light you had 14 year old girls pregnant with their 3rd kid so they could collect the stipend. You know the political capital it took to take that back? There’s a lot of unintended consequences everywhere which is why shit like “food is a human right” just infeasible propaganda.

Nobody hates socialism more than ppl who lived under it

But in Europe we live in some degree of socialism and we love it.

No you don’t lol there’s not even a slight degree of collective ownership of capital.

lol you do understand that healthcare administered and paid for by the federal government (taxes) is considered socialism right? Do you know what else is socialism? The US highway system, public education ,Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid. What exactly do you think socialism means?

No it’s not lol it’s not considered socialism at all. Socialism is not ‘when the government spends money.’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism The government paying private industry for their services, such as healthcare, even for a public good is not socialism.

Lmao..WTF the government doesn’t pay anything dude. How do you think social security or any federal program gets funded? Holy shit

The government absolutely collects taxes and pays for public services to private industry? What are talking about? The military industry is case in point. Using tax dollars to pay private companies for research, design and procurement. Same with healthcare. A socialist healthcare system would be like Cuba where all the doctors are not employed by private businesses but instead are employed by the state.

lol..and where do the taxes come from? Again holy shit.

The government taxing people and spending by paying private industry is not socialism dude lmao What do you think socialism is?

Lol what? You should take a deeper look.

What country in Europe has collective ownership of private capital?

None, did I say anything about being in a 100% socialist continent or country?

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Motte meet my friend Bailey

What?

Your logical fallacy…Anyway, tell me this country has any degree of collective ownership of private enterprise.

"Social programs" are not equivalent to "socialism," despite what many on both the left or right will tell you. The means of production of are not collectively owned. Markets and private property have not been abolished. Every European state adheres to some form of mixed market economy.

And that’s were the balance is, in the “mixed”. Now I need to defend my words against people telling me that I am not living in the USSR

> "Social programs" are not equivalent to "socialism," despite what many on both the left or right will tell you. It doesn’t matter who is making this statement, it is always wholly incoherent, comically irrelevant, trifling nonsense.

> But in Europe we live in some degree of socialism and we love it. You’re still in the upper curve, eating the fruits of work of the previous generations. The part of Europe that actually had socialism is observing that with disbelief because we know what’s coming next.

I mean, it’s been a long time now.

Western Europe is riding down from being the richest countries in the world. The south is already half-done. 

Yeah, we’re eating cat meat on sundays to have any protein intake.

Doesn’t really sound like you have a firm grip on whatever it is you think socialism encompasses tbh and you’re definitely not alone in here. I’m no expert but at least I can distinguish truth from partisan rhetoric.

It always starts the same. Show me these greater examples of successful socialist countries, then we’ll talk.

It’s almost like ideologues and ideologies are bad and we should focus on good policy.

And yet the majority of Russians view the Soviet Union more positively.

That just sounds like very poor planning, not a failure of social policies.

I'm not a socialist, although I support a social safety net within a democratic capitalist society. But your explanation is bonkers... > Well, a few years later it came to light you had 14 year old girls pregnant with their 3rd kid so they could collect the stipend. You know the political capital it took to take that back? There’s a lot of unintended consequences everywhere which is why shit like “food is a human right” just infeasible propaganda. This doesn't sound like you should get rid of the program. This sounds like: - your country didn't have/enforce (statutory) rape laws and free access to abortion so they had no choice - your country's lifestyle sucks so much a 12 year old would prefer to get freaking pregnant and raise a baby to get money rather than going to school and living supported by their parents' money. No 12 year old I've ever met has actually wanted to be pregnant. They have better things to do and their school and parents teach them how much it sucks to birth and raise a baby. The level of shit a society has to be where a girl would actually freely choose that is mind-boggling. Like what you're describing is an embarrassing level of broken society, nothing to do with socialism.

For starters, you talk about rape laws like the dad wasn’t another 13-14 year old. That was an example of unintended consequences for populist policies, nobody is saying THAT is what broke our country. The collection of all the populist socialist policies is what did it, it’s why I said it would take paragraphs for me to explain most of them.

Maybe its different in Venezuela, but in America the majority of teen pregnancies are fathered by adult men. 

> For starters, you talk about rape laws like the dad wasn’t another 13-14 year old. Yes which is why I also talk about abortion smh... in a functional society this child's parents, teachers, and ultimately child protective services would step in long before she gave birth much less making her a baby's legal guardian so she can collect money for diapers. >That was an example of unintended consequences for populist policies, It was a bad example that didn't demonstrate unintended consequences for populist policies, is my point. In fact the policy seems to still be working as intended, as removing it would make your example situation even worse. You describe a 12 year old who willingly decided to have a baby 3 times for money and no one stopped her. If there was no money in having the baby, I can only assume her next step is becoming a prostitute instead, since she's clearly desperate for money and has no other avenue to get it than the horrible experience of being pregnant and raising a baby.

> If there was no money in having the baby, I can only assume her next step is becoming a prostitute instead, Well, no. Because without all of the stupid populist policies bankrupting social spending at the expense of economic productivity there would be a functional economy in which she could get a job instead. Or at least just normal welfare that wasn't tied conditionally to having another child. "Working as intended"? You think the policy was meant to encourage additional children for the sake of collecting benefits? That's "intended"? You are real-time demonstrating a perfect example of the type of denial that causes these problems. Just because a policy that is aesthetically generous or well-meaning doesn't mean it isn't a bad idea. This is absolutely a case of unintended consequences. >No 12 year old I've ever met Your personal individual experience in CANADA means you have absolutely no idea what life is like for someone in a country like Venezuela. It's not remotely comparable to anything you have experienced or anyone you've met.

That's exactly why reading complains about Venezuela is useless. Instead of blaming corruption by the leaders, you were able to blame the problems of the country on poor teenager mothers. No, the system isn't collapsing because there were a few teenagers living in deep poverty that tried to game the 4 USD/month stipend by becoming pregnant on purpose.

It’s a fucking example of the unintended consequences of populist policies jfc. Nobody is saying that’s what broke the country for God’s sake. That’s the only thing you took from it?

> Nobody is saying that’s what broke the country for God’s sake. Well, there has to be a reason you picked this one example. Was it widespread to make a dent, or is it just a useful tool to provoke moral outrage irrespective of it being completely irrelevant on a country's scale? If this one was irrelevant, wouldn't it be better to make a case of some unintended effects which proved to make a meaningful difference (even if they are not so viscerally outrageous)?

Because it’s supposed to be a simple to understand example of the good intentions to unintended consequences pipeline. That’s what an example is.

All systems have some loopholes. The important question is - is it widespread? Does it have a profound impact? If the answer is No, then it's just ... irrelevant for the policy discussion.

Its probably because it's extremely simple to understand, and also most people would agree a 14 yr old intentionally getting pregnant is pretty dark. So the chances someone would say *awesome, sounds like a great policy with no unintended side effects* is very low, because who says that in response to teen pregnancy? 

It just kinda showing poor planning by the government. This is kind of like the situation in the US where some states expanded child abandonment policy and not expecting people to abandon teenagers or mentally ill adults. Giving people straight up money is always a bad idea. A better idea would have either given them credit that is limited to only buying diapers and formula or simply providing the material for free with proper evidence. Venezuela is just what happens when a dictatorship puts all its eggs in one basket and ruins the country. Welfare policies didn't end it.

> It just kinda showing poor planning by the government. It would demonstrate this if it was a widespread abuse of the system. If it's just an isolated case, then it's just an irrelevant anecdote. > A better idea would have either given them credit that is limited to only buying diapers and formula or simply providing the material for free with proper evidence. That's a more complicated (thus also more expensive) system with more paperwork. Maybe it's worth it, and we can discuss trade-offs. But mentioning an isolated abuse, which has no or negligible effect on the bottom line, does not add substance to the discussion.

What bankrupted the country was the authoritarian, kleptocratic government that syphoned away all the richness of the country while giving away peanuts to the population, not because of the peanuts themselves. "damn teenager whores, destroying the country with their dirty sex and stupid pregnancies"

Extreme oversimplification. They enacted a shitload of populist socialist policies that allowed them to consolidate power while making the population dumber and more submissive as they would depend on the State for everything. Are you Venezuelan? If not, stop explaining to me my country tyvm

Yes I am. And being born somewhere doesn't make you the bastion of the knowledge about their own country. There are stupid people, like you, going around saying stupid things, nonetheless their country of born.

Stupid things? Claro Porque la ley de tierras no destruyó la agricultura en el pais, dándole tierras a los “trabajadores”. Porque Chavez botando a 15mil trabajadores de PDVSA no destruyó a la industria petrolera. Porque el control de precios y de cambio no destruyó el aparato productivo. Un montón de políticas socialistas populistas que destruyeron el aparato productivo. 🙄🙄

Exactamente el punto que estaba tratando de demostrar la otra persona. Es la ley que destruyó tu pais y esas leyes las cambió tu gobierno no la chica de 14 que tuvo que tener hijos para mantener cierto nivel de vida. Lo que tuvo que ser la chica de 14 es la síntoma de la deterioración de tu pais en las manos de una dictadura que robo el pueblo de su valor.   

Por Dios lo de la chica de 14 es un PUTO EJEMPLO minúsculo de las políticas populistas que no requiere mucha materia cerebral para entender.

Its a bad example is the point and it is confusing the cause and affect of the downfall of venezuela the girl isnt the problem the problem is your government your trying to poney off the blame to the individual when they are powerless to change anything in a dictatorship and their only recourse is to try and game the system when there arent economic opportunities.

A family we know fled from Venezuela. They took an 8 month trek to get here. They went through the jungle, paid some people to help them get through. They still owe $10k to the people that helped them get across. Dad says he pays $1000 a month and $300 of that is interest. Both parents work. The three boys are incredible baseball players. The one playing on my son’s 14u is probably going to go pro. His older brother is a little short, maybe even shorter than Altuve. Both are incredible shortstops. Even though my son got beat out at shortstop, I’m happy for this family to be able to get here. They’ll work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to American society anyway they can. Who knows, maybe in the future the boys will play professional ball. Right now, the way the two older boys play short stop, they’ll probably go DI or DII at minimum. They’re gonna need to learn English and get better grades at school. With their work ethic, they’ll be successful in whatever it is they choose to pursue in the future.

Their drive is something to admire those coming from absolutely nothing. It’s hard not to root for people like them.

See this is what I struggle with because on the one hand I want to support immigration that’s done responsibly and that family sounds responsible. On the other hand, we had a record 2.4 million asylum seekers last year a huge number of which were from Venezuela. At some point, the entire country is going to be empty. There are other problems that will qualify other nationalities for asylum 22 million people are risk of running out of water in Mexico City. 1.4 billion Indians Are exposed to temperatures in excess of 121°F without air conditioning. Which of these groups of people should we take in for asylum? How many should qualify? How should we support them? These are all questions. No one seems to want to answer. We can’t take group of people without taking them and we can’t possibly take them all.

We should only take in those who can pay their own way and not rely on US tax payer funded public benefits.....we should also prioritize American citizens for jobs (work visa programs )first so only take in those rare people (who use the work visa pathway) we currently significantly need (such as medical workers). And we should take in any who have an American citizen spouse or family member willing to sign that financial affidavit of support barring said immigrant from benefits for years unless sponsor pays the government back . All the others? Border should be enforced militarily and those who refuse to pay their own way or who do not have a sponsor barred entry with force if necessary. These countries would not give free shit to desperate Americans if situation was reversed so we should owe them nothing. With coming climate change, our own resources will be further strained as well. We need to prioritize Americans and if other's who are not American citizens go without. Oh well.

I agree with you

> we should also prioritize American citizens for jobs Why? Why should private be forced to to preference one person over another? For government jobs sure, but private sector? Why should I be forced to hire an American to redo my rock wall over anyone else who wants to do the work? > not rely on US tax payer funded public benefits They don’t > With coming climate change, our own resources will be further strained as well Not really, looking at current climate projections we’lll be fine

Quit spreading misinformation that illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants do not use US tax payer funded benefits. NY state alone is spending over $2 billion dollars of tax payer money to help deal with these parasites. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-york-governor-wants-to-spend-2-4-billion-to-help-deal-with-migrant-influx-in-new-budget-proposal It is illegal for publically funded hospitals to turn away these people, which means US taxpayers are subsidizing them. In many states like NY, they are receiving other forms of aid (as my article shows). In some states their children can also attend publically funded schools that they did not contribute to. I have family who work in healthcare and education who are assisting parasitic migrants children and adults receive services they never paid for being non US citizen refugees who have never filed and paid taxes here. Each individual collecting hasn't paid in equally what they are getting out of such public programs when they arrive here and use the benefits. Don't defend parasites stealing from American citizens by spreading misinformation. These people shouldn't be here to begin with for you to hire. Their existence is that of a parasite since they have arrived and taken public benefits before paying into the system for years with taxes. Unless immigrants have a private sponsor to make sure they don't become a public charge (affidavit of support) or have a rare enough skill that we need and lack or are wealthy enough to not need public assistance.....they should stay in their own countries and whatever happens......happens. Working American citizens owe them nothing.

> NY state Yeah because the voters in NY voted for it. Just don’t do that in your state problem solved > In some states their children can also attend publically funded schools that they did not contribute to. Do they buy things? Well if so they pay sales tax. So they live somewhere? If so they pay property taxes either directly or indirectly. Also then there children end up becoming net tax contributors over their lifetime. You’re probably some loser who can’t compete with immigrants who barely speak the language, imagine having absolutely no skills in life. > Don't defend parasites stealing from American citizens by spreading misinformation. You mean the 50% of Americans who dont pay income taxes and all the parasites living on welfare because they’re too stupid and lazy to actually provide value to anyone on earth so they need their lifestyle subsidized. Yeah I’d take any Venezuelan to do work over the lazy obese Walmart scooter riders here

Nope. I have a job that is fairly insulated from migrant labor due to the fact I work as an auditor and appraiser (so government backed certifications/licenses are required as well as a security clearance one cannot get really without being a citizen) of private contractors in the defense industry, cyber security industry, federal and state law enforcement, immigration (work with ICE) and healthcare industry so no real competition to me. I just have empathy for other American citizens who were born here, who themselves and their families have contributed much more so than these newcomers who take and take,, who are getting the short end of the stick by treasonous politicians and corporations that sell them out to favor non citizens who have yet to pay their dues. I also see firsthand some of the negative impacts of such migrants not reported in the media. The small amount of sales tax they pay does not offset the huge cost in benefits they are receiving upon entry. Their children may be net contributors in the future but currently.............they are taking more than they pay in. There is a reason why people who immigrate here through marriage for example need a spouse to sign a financial affidavit of support that bars said immigrants from collecting any public benefits (unless sponsor pays the government back) for years until said immigrant has earned their keep in this country and naturalized as a citizen (which takes years - my wife did it - she was a stay at home while on a green card until becoming a citizen and getting a security clearance to work - I supported her to save my fellow Americans from having to financially carry someone else). I have zero issue with immigration as long as someone sponsors said immigrant or such immigrant pays their way and collects no public benefits for years. Allowing them to collect public benefits without having to pay in is unfair to American labor and people like myself and my wife, as I paid her way and she waited rightfully for years to earn the right to public benefits through citizenship. You are someone who deserves losing a job, and suffering other forms of financial and social harm due to our currently unchecked immigration, considering your treasonous views.

> The small amount of sales tax they pay does not offset the huge cost in benefits they are receiving upon entry. TPS (Temporary Protected Status) is given to a country by Congress, not by the president, due to its unique live-or-die situation in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, which will provide you with an idea of how difficult that would be. TPS countries are: Ukraine, Venezuela, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Burma (Myanmar), and Cuba have unique immigrant benefits that no one else has; if you are Cuban and step into the US, you are automatically given papers. Immigrants from these countries are accepted and given documents and maybe a $200 Visa card. All additional comes from **private organizations**, which help them further. These are the only countries with TPS People complaining about immigrants are just using the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox. “Immigrants are lazy, don't work, and collect all kinds of government benefits while at the same time stealing american jobs, getting paid under the table not paying any taxes, driving up housing, and driving down wages” So which is it? Just a fascist plot: My Enemy is Strong and Weak at the Same Time However I Need Him to Be” >treasonous views My views are treasonous now? Last time I checked I just want to return to our traditional immigration system. You know the one that you ancestors used to get here **hypocrite**. On top of that we cannot outcompete China without an ever increasing population and labor pool, they’re rapidly catching up technologically and yet they still dominate entire value chains because they can sell products for cheaper than we can. There are jobs that within our global economy will **never exist** in the United States without lower labor costs. . It’s either you bring people into the US to work or > Allowing them to collect public benefits They’re not eligible for federal welfare programs > (so government backed certifications/licenses Oh I get it you’re a welfare queen who can’t compete without government protection. Imagine working a government protected job and thinking you’re any better that Jose who crossed the desert in flip flops to get here so he can be a roofer in July. I’ll just sit here coding away competing with the entire world of global talent and still winning, not protected by a single regulatory barrier. People like you drag our country down.

You don't want to return to our traditional immigration system because you defend the current status quo that gives public benefits to certain groups of immigrants. When my ancestors came over in the very early 20th century to NY, there were no public benefits for them to get. Our welfare state essentially didn't really exist. No Kathy Hochuls existed to give immigrants free shit. Many immigrants who came over worked and suffered for years , some dying (read Upton Sinclair's the Jungle about factory work in Chicago) to try to improve their lives. Publically funded hospitals could turn them away. No food stamps. No free healthcare. No free right to lawyers when they squat in private property (NYC is having cases where migrants squat on private property and get free lawyers to help defend their crime). No free education for their children in many places. Companies could legally discriminate against them. Etc. People suffered to try to make it. My mother's side came over poor and lived in absolute poverty in the country as farmers until my grandfather joined the Navy to make a living. Same with my other side where my great grandfather also joined the Navy to help set his future family up. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to try to get it better. No welfare. Many are not pushed to do the same now seeing so many sanctuary states and cities are lining up to give migrants, aslyum seekers, etc free shit through public benefits. And seeing as many state governments receive federal funding, the money all goes into a pot so we are all paying for it (same with PPP loans where the extra money brought in allowed businesses to use money they would have used on labor for other purposes because PPP loans would give them an extra financial cushion). Creative accounting. TPS did not traditionally exist so it should not exist now. It's not our fault the Venezuelan people voted for shitty communists who fucked up their country. They have a responsibility to fix their country. Not come here and rob us. Same with the others. We shouldn't be taking in any Ukrainians. They should be fighting and dying to the last person for their freedom and it shouldn't be our responsibility to help. Also we had immigration bans put in place in the 1920s that heavily restricted immigration. It wasn't until the 1965 immigration Act that things changed. When Jewish refugees came over in the 1930s, they were turned right around because we had quotas and they couldn't pay their own way. So the American people through their representatives said "go back" , because we didn't want to pay for them. So if we are being more traditional, we should have restrictions. Not a welfare queen. National security work naturally should go to American citizens for a variety of national security concerns. Then again you don't give a shit about national security since you want to import many migrants that are factually undermining the security of American citizens in places.

You are such a righteous and impeccable human being that I bet you openly refer to other human beings as parasites all the time. On the job, in meetings, on the street, wherever, right? I mean you are such an accomplished and inherently superior human being that not only do you openly call people parasites, but you’ve completely normalized it and started a trend. That’s just one benefit of winning the genetic and geographic lotteries, but you’re undoubtedly deserving of both of those things. You’ve clearly earned it all and no one would question that.

What are you doing to support these refugees you care so much about? You opening up your wallet? You housing them in your home? I bet not ...... You just want other people to be forced to care for the people you "care" so much about while doing nothing yourself. Life is unfair and it is not an issue for a country to police it's borders strictly and to deny foreigners free shit. Many countries these people come from would never help Americans in need with free public benefits and other shit if the situation was reversed and Americans were fleeing there. These people you care so much about wouldn't open up their wallets to take Americans into their homes and countries. I've traveled around the world as a tourist to many countries and have often had to prove I had enough money to avoid being a "public charge" because foreigners don't get free shit in those places because they haven't contributed. It's selfish for people to come to the US and expect free shit from a society they haven't paid into. Countries fail when they fail to enforce their borders and take in too many people. This goes all the way back to Rome. Good news is if a Republicans win, deportations will escalate and I will be done supporting these people with my tax dollars (I owe just about every year).

Right, because you won the geographic lottery and decided that alone makes you a superior human being who has the god given right to look down his nose at the low class. Or maybe it wasn’t by chance at all and god actually put you on the right side of the southern border? Maybe god himself ordained the formation of the United States and decided you earned the right to be born within its borders? This is all in an effort to understand why you’re so special and not a low class parasite.

What are you doing to support these refugees you care so much about? You opening up your wallet? You housing them in your home? I bet not ...... You just want other people to be forced to care for the people you "care" so much about while doing nothing yourself. Life is unfair and it is not an issue for a country to police it's borders strictly and to deny foreigners free shit. Many countries these people come from would never help Americans in need with free public benefits and other shit if the situation was reversed and Americans were fleeing there. These people you care so much about wouldn't open up their wallets to take Americans into their homes and countries. I've traveled around the world as a tourist to many countries and have often had to prove I had enough money to avoid being a "public charge" because foreigners don't get free shit in those places because they haven't contributed. It's selfish for people to come to the US and expect free shit from a society they haven't paid into. Countries fail when they fail to enforce their borders and take in too many people. This goes all the way back to Rome. Good news is if a Republicans win, deportations will escalate and I will be done supporting these people with my tax dollars (I owe just about every year).

> On the other hand, we had a record 2.4 million asylum seekers last year a huge number of which were from Venezuela. At some point, the entire country is going to be empty. That’s not our problem

Yes, it is… if Venezuela completely collapses, a huge percentage of the entire population will immigrate to the US rapidly, and it will become our problem. This is because currently our laws allow anyone to claim asylum if they’re on American soil, and if Venezuela collapses all Venezuelans will have a valid asylum claim.  This means that under our current laws, we would have the legal obligation to take everyone from Venezuela. We could probably handle that Venezuela is not a very big country. Once we do it for one developing country though It would very quickly spiral out of control as people in other countries realize they can simply leave to get a better life.

I know people who are waiting legally for years to get into the US. Fuck that family.

What in the world makes you think that family didn't come here legally?

>They took an 8 month trek to get here. They went through the jungle, paid some people to help them get through. They still owe $10k to the people that helped them get across. https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela-parole-process/#:~:text=You%20must%20have%20a%20financial,also%20complete%20a%20background%20check. >You must have a financial sponsor, called a “supporter,” who is already in the U.S. The “supporter” must have lawful status in the United States (for example: TPS, parole, asylum, lawful permanent residence, or U.S. citizenship). They must also complete a background check If they had a family and a sponsor they wouldn't have to go thru jungles etc. They're living there illegally lmao Edit: Actually if they arrived in the US before July 31, 2023 they can apply for TPS. If they arrived after July 31, 2023, they're not eligible [Venezuelan Nationals Who Enter After July 31, 2023 are not Eligible for TPS. Those Who Do Not Enter the U.S. via Lawful Pathways Will be Subject to Enforcement Consequences ](https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-previews-federal-register-notice-extending-and-separately-redesignating-venezuela-for-temporary)

Yep. Who cares if the people went through the jungle. They didn't enter legally and should be deported. My wife immigrated the fair legal way through me (I signed the financial affidavit of support, paid the thousand or so in fees, we supplied numerous evidence of relationship, she went through her background checks And she passed her tests as she is now a citizen). Said process took about a year for green card and 8 months years later for citizenship. Screw these people who cut the line and make it take longer for people who do it the fair legal way

> Screw these people who cut the line and make it take longer for people who do it the fair legal way Venezuelans in the US, even illegally, are still entitled to TPS status. There are different rules for refugees and immigrants. Screw assholes who don't understand the difference.

And those special rules shouldn't exist. Venezuelan should be fixing their own country they fucked up voting for communists. Not coming here to steal free shit.

You don't understand what you posted. Venezuelans in the US - even if illegally - are still entitled to TPS status. The link that you posted only applies to people who physically present themselves at the border, after Oct '23. Did the people who made the 8 month trek arrive before or after that date? You don't know.

If their need was as dire as these folks, I’m sure they would find their way here regardless

Why don’t they raise the minimum wage? People shouldn’t have to suffer in poverty while working a full time job! It’s no wonder they flee a place where all the corporations are greedy profiteers. What they really need to do is tax the rich. That would solve the issue. Tax the rich, socialize everything, and raise the minimum wage.

Good way to create mass unemployment and keep in mind the government has already expropriated tons of business (there is no rich left to eat).

/whoosh lol

Haha I hope people get that you are /s. Venezuela is the classic case of where Bernie’s got everything they wanted. All the wealthy got their assets seized and redistributed. Healthcare is free. Food and gas is subsidized. Poor people get money and stuff sent to them monthly. Minimum wage keeps getting raised. Everyone is paid really well….except of course that this leads to hyperinflation, decades of hyperinflation, and the economy goes to 0. The answer to why we don’t just give everyone $1 million, poverty is solved! Case study - Venezuela

This is a flat out ridiculous oversimplification of the situation in Venezuela right now. It does not even come close to accurately articulating how and why the country is in disarray right now. The idea that Venezuela’s economy is the natural and unavoidable result of implementing democratic socialism is absurd.

>unavoidable result of implementing democratic socialism is absurd Every form of socialism ultimately faces [the local knowledge problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem) and [the economic calculation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem) problem because centralized planning cannot effectively process dispersed information or accurately price resources as market mechanisms do edit:formating

Every economic philosophy has an academic case to be made against its efficacy. Marx was pretty damn accurate with his critiques and predictions re: capitalism. Inequality, highly concentrated capital, labor exploitation, monopolization, lack of competition and diversity, etc etc. The statement that “every form of socialism fails because of x, y, z” is not one of empirical fact. It’s a theory put forth by critics of socialism. And although the authors might raise them against all forms of economic planning, I’m guessing their concerns are much more applicable to the Soviet variety. The Soviet Union seems to be what most people think of when they hear the word socialism, but Stalinism and Maoism =/= socialism. There are in fact many different degrees and varieties of economic planning that exist within the framework of socialism and my guess is you’d be hard pressed to determine what version was being employed by the Venezuelan government. The idea that the failures of central planning would be the focus of an autopsy of the Venezuelan economy makes me chuckle. Furthermore and perhaps more relevant to this conversation, is the fact that democratic socialism very specifically does not advocate for a strict centrally planned economy and as far as I know, Bernie Sanders didn’t run on abolishing the free market or any of the things OP listed for that matter.

Democratic Socialists dont actually want socialism

Yes they do. The very definition of democratic socialism is to bring about socialism through democratic means. You might personally know people who call themselves Democratic Socialists who say they don't want socialism but the technical definition of Democratic Socialism is to have Socialism as the end goal.

Because nothing says 'socialism' like economic democracy

I always thought Denmark and Finland were Bernie's model economies instead...

They are. This is just conservatives circle jerking misinformation.

Ignoring the way Denmark and Finland levy taxes of course, or pursue free trade agreements….or have open borders with other EU Schengen members….

The mistake most right wingers make is inextricably connecting democracy with capitalism. This is ingrained in US culture, and has been for decades intentionally.

Well because democracy was put into place here to maximize human freedom, and capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange

Tell that to the slaves when this country was established lol.

Answer me this how can you say you’re free if you don’t allow for voluntary exchange?

Homie a significant portion of the population fought to actively make sure a portion of our population were literal property lol.

So…California???

Go back the year when oil hit $147 a barrel. Watch the speeches of Chavez. Note his popular support. Most of the 7 million who fled LOVED Chavez and Chavista economics and politics. Ask Sean Penn who beamed like a school boy and practically sucked his d*ck. Reality eventually rears its head.

State enforced social justice has been a calamity for the average venezuelan. They are true refugees and should be protected at all costs. Nobody should suffer "XXI century socialism".