Hey I'm trying to figure out a solution to this question

Hey I'm trying to figure out a solution to this question.
If a top down management economy such as socialism is supposed to be a stable and useful economy then how come its easily susceptible to outside forces? Before you ban me, just take a moment to really think about it. A self sustaining economy such as socialism should be able to exist outside of external market forces, the money has nowhere it needs to go in so far as a stable food and goods exchange. Nationalised resource management should be self sustaining right?
Yes I am talking about Venezuela.

Other urls found in this thread:



Well user, that's because Venezuela is literally under the capitalist mode of production.

Venezuela aint nationalized for shit, son.


that's called capitalism

Norway is more "socialist" than Venezuela is


Check the catalog before making a thread, have a sage. user, Cuba is about 3/4 to 4/5 state-owned sector, China ~1/2, Scandinavian countries ~1/3, and Venezuela has a slightly smaller public sector than Scandinavian countries.

Socialism isn't nationalization. Also about 70% of Venezuela's economy is privately owned.

I'd give you that, my point still stands though. The thats not socialism argument is an ideological linguistic fail safe.

Central planning isn't socialism per se. Socialism is above all the democratic control of the means of production by the members of the collective that operates them.
Capitalism and the existence private property, which is distinct from personal property, could be considered "top down" if anything, considering that a small group of individuals have the privilege of deciding over life and death within their domain, and gather all the profits to themselves without directly participating in the process of creating said surplus, nor required to listen a single word uttered by those whom make the wheels turn.

I'd address the central point of your post, if only there was one that which would not have been built upon the murky swamp of complete misconceptions.

It really isn't. Socialism is a completely separate mode of production that isn't defined as social programs and nationalization.

but it doesn't. Words have definitions, political philosophy and political economy has hundreds of years of classifying these things under its belt. Now you can call a capitalist economy socialist if you insist but doesn't really contribute anything meaningful to a political discussion.
Moreover even if the retarded boomer-tier definition of socialism that no one who has read even an introductory book of political theory would hold, ie. socialism is whenever the government does anything, venezuela is a far cry from socialism to the point where european social democracies like norway and denmark appear to be 'more socialist'. Venezuela is just a south american norway, an oil-dependant tepid social democracy with an undiversified economy which found itself in a crisis concerning oil prices and us sanctions, only after years of those same policies being rather successful and generating relative prosperity for a south american country.

Then again the OP seems to exist in some delusion where venezuela is a fully state-owned economy and thus should be self-sustaining (???) so this probably won't get through.


It's not a no true scotsman if it literally does not fit the definition of a term, you brainlet


This guy knows what he's talking about.

And while we're on the subject, why wasn't Barcelona at the Superbowl this year? What kind of championship match is it when the #1 football team in the world isn't competing?

then pick a country that has actually attempted to implement communism. there are a few, Venezuela is not one of them.


Because it's too small and poor to be self-sustainable.

venezuela doesn't have central planning, private property still exists. Venezuela is CAPITALIST