is that better?

That's what I said this whole time

That's been the position I have been arguing for

My argument has been:
Venezuela is an example of why reformation cannot establish socialism. You cannot establish the socialist mode of production by voting in official and slowly changing it with economic reforms. Socialism requires a revolutionary war, seizure of state power by the working class and continued on going revolutionary terror to maintain the transition

This is in the broader context of why Democratic Socialism is bad

it wasnt communist and wasnt fully capitalistic either

you're describing a communistic state

There is no difference between socialism and communism

They're the same thing

Marx and Engels used the terms interchangeably

And up until Lenin this was the case

Lenin early on even used the terms interchangeably

```a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.```

advocates, owned OR regulated

Appeal to definition

it was regulated by the government that was leaning towards the community

and it did advocate instead of fully enforcing it, so people could still run away

perfectly fucking matches the example

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/27/Appeal-to-Definition

yeah we can use no definitions

we can play with shit, that sounds fun

lets draw circles and quarrel whos circle is the best circle

ffs

Well you could actually read up on socialism instead of using dictionaries

In What is to be Done by Lenin, and Critique of the Gotha Program by Marx, you can see a clear interchangeability between socialism and communism as terms

It wasn't until Lenin described Marx's "First Phase of Communism" as Socialism and said it was the transition to Communism(which is what he called Marx's final phase of communism) that socialism and communism were ever used to describe different things

Even separating socialism and communism like that clearly demonstrates Venezuela is not socialist

Currently most Marxists outside of a few uneducated Marxist Leninists, use the terms interchangeably

And Democratic Socialists, as well as even Anarchists still agree on the final stage of communism being the goal

There is a clear difference between socialism and communism yes

Socialism is collective ownership over the means of production, while communism is a classless, moneyless and stateless world many socialists try to achieve

As far as I know, all Marxists are familiar with this

yup that's pretty spot on

On the topic of Venezuela, I still believe that the government of the country sticks to socialism as an ideology, and haven’t really transitioned in practice.

All Marxists know the terms are interchangeable, there is no clear difference

Socialism is classless, stateless and moneyless

I'll show an example

```Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.```

-On Authority by Engels

It was commonly understood that at best communism is just the full realization of socialism

But communism is still socialism