okay

```
The Venezuelan government also set price controls in 2003 on around 400 basic foods in an effort according to the Washington Post, to "counter inflation and protect the poor", and in March 2009, they set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce.[45][46] However, these economic policies led higher inflation rates and caused more shortages which in turn hurt those in poverty.[9][47][48]```

not real socialism bro

are you implying that regulations = socialism or something

regulated capitalism is not socialism

and yeah i think a lot of these policies are silly

if you are going to rely on the private sector

"price controls aren't socialist bro"

which venezuela does

Yes, the government controlling the economy, that's one of the fundamentals of socialism.

then you have to allow the private sector to function properly

not really

at its core it has to do with property relationships

you could be more strict and say there also can't be generalized commodity production

but socialism isn't necessarily about government control

government control doesn't necessarily equal collective ownership and collective ownership doesn't necessarily equal government control

If A inevitably leads to B, then yes, you can claim B is part of it as much as A.

it doesn't though

having like price controls or a minimum wage doesn't change that the means of production are still privately owned

and there are examples of collective control that isn't realized in the form of state owned enterprise like in rojava and chiapas

How the fuck are you going to enforce socialism without the government using it's tiranical power and suppressing people's freedoms?

even in the soviet union to an extent, kolkhozes were only partially directly state controlled and were sort of an intermediate between state owned enterprise and cooperatives

you would do it like you do in chiapas where power is held in a very decentralized manner

granted i don't personally advocate for such a thing

but it exists

did they pop up on their own?

Who gets to shoot the citizens that don't like being told how to live their lives? Government? Or local groups? Does it matter?

via armed rebellion

i dunno i mean every society is backed by the threat of force

Not true.

if you want to call like any organization of force no matter how decentralized and informal a government then fine but then asking how socialism could exist without a government is a pointless question since no society has or can

Everywhere else, you only fear the usage of force against you by the government if you broke the law.

yeah the law is telling you how to live your life

But the laws on one place are to stop people from actively harming society, the other has abusive laws that let government overstep into everyone's private affairs.

it sounds like you're making an argument based on the liberal dichotomy between positive and negative liberty

It sounds like you speak in paragraphs to avoid addressing arguments.

that's not a paragraph

Why did all those Cubans risked death to flee the utopia then? Stop monologuing your commie talking points and respond.

i dunno why do mexicans risk death to flee mexico

probably because the united states is richer than every single latin american country

with the overwhelming majority being capitalist