it could be used as a way to move toward socialism

You're defending violent socialist policies, and saying they're less important to establishing whether or not a country is socialist, than the relative size of the public sector.

they are basically irrelevant

when you are describing the mode of production as it currently exists

so what are these "certain scenarios" that are exempt from your considerations?

by certain scenarios i mean they haven't like banned private property or expropriated the overwhelming majority of it

they have expropriated very specific things

in norway, it is allowed for a government to expropriate property, if a public road has been planned, but the owners have to be compensated

and a very small amount

so what

are the companies being compensated in venezuela?

it doesn't matter

didn't think so

of course it matters

it doesn't

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?