@wahx well that’s not the case

Private does not mean capitalist

Venezuela’s economy has strong state intervention

This is also shown by the fact it has the lowest economic freedom score

It is socialist

Lmao it doesn’t matter

One crime is too much

See I don't think you know what socialism means then. Socialism is the people owning the means of production. That is not the case in much of Venezuela's economy. That's all I'm saying.

I understand socialist

Socialism

Also yeah a LIBERTARIAN think tank won’t have a biased

And that’s the wrong definition

AT ALLLLL

It’s either workers or state owned means of production

Not only workers

However if the economy is has strong state intervention, it is indirectly controlled by the state

Enough so , to be called socialist

Ok, we have different definitions, that's fine. I don't remember what the original point was.

I don't want the US to become venezuela, no one does

If venezeula is socialist or not

ok and we have different definitions of socialism so it's going to stay unanswered in this discussion

that's fine

At best you can call it an unfree cronyism

alright

Btw no one can have different definitions there is only one. Just saying

that's pretty reductive. Socialism is a broad concept. Is there only one definition to nature, to government? Concepts are broad dude, our language doesn't allow for absolutism in definitions

only a sith deals in absolutes lol, my favorite ironic phrase

Well that would be the definition

Accepted by many

The state or worker control of the means of production

when I google socialism I get "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." And I accept your definition as *one* definition of socialism, but the part of your definition that talks about a state controlled means of production is not necessarily regulated by the community is it?

so I take issue with the inclusion of totalitarian state run economies I guess, because they are not "socialized" by the community, but rather by the state who may not have the interests of the public at heart

but it goes to my point that socialism has been used in many different ways

That sounds like communism to me

At the start

So I think there's a distinction between a state run economy and socialism, although there's obvious overlap

that's just what I get when I google socialism

A state run economy would be socialist

every definition I can find specifies that the *people* need to be involved somehow

it would be if the people ran the state

you see the difference?