I think you'll find textbook socialism are very different to what you think socialism and communism are. Do the workers in Venezuela own the means of production?
OK then, which countries in the world are or have ever been socialist?
The point isn't that the "textbook" definition of socialism is bad. The point is that every single real world attempt at getting to socialism has been bad, so why wouldnt future attempts run into the same problems?
It's a bit of a straw man to present failed socialist-in-name-only states when critiquing socialism. If someone were to bring up the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea as an attempt to critique democracy you'd rightly scoff.
I'll freely admit there have been numerous failed socialist states. Very few self-proclaimed socialist states have even attempted to implement socialism. Many who claimed to be socialist were destroyed by capitalist states[1]. Some attempts for free states have been crushed by other self-identified socialists[2] but it's of course impossible to know if these groups would be socialist in the long term. Socialism is inherently horizontalist, which means it doesn't fit into the model of centrally controlled countries, making it very hard to achieve for any extended period of time.
The only current socialist experiment I'm aware of is Syrian Kurdistan, Rojava, which is trying to promote a co-op based economy based, while reducing the damage private ownership can do.
Imagine you tried to have a capitalist revolution in feudal Europe. Can you imagine that would go very well? Probably not. It's easy to see why capitalism is an improvement over feudalism, but it's hard to comprehend how long it took to get there. Similarly socialism, if it is ever achieved, is probably going to fought against by the established order tooth and nail. This is certainly no excuse for the failures and crimes of vanguard communist parties[3]. All this humble fellow would ask is people take the time to educate themselves on what socialists actually want before presenting critique.
[1] This category is almost beyond enumeration, Reagan Doctrine, Guatemala, domino theory, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.
[2] My history isn't great but I believe these count: Revolutionary Catalonia, the Black Army, Kronstadt rebellion, there are probably more, especially in relation to the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922
[3] As an aside, I don't believe vanguard parties are the way to go
"It's a bit of a straw man to present failed socialist-in-name-only states when critiquing socialism. If someone were to bring up the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea as an attempt to critique democracy you'd rightly scoff."
It's a bit of a straw man to present failed attempts at cold fusion when critiquing cold fusion itself.
Communist revolutionaries genuinely did attempt to implement socialism. The fact that so many failed should make one question the wisdom of attempting their approach.
Perhaps the fatal flaw in socialism is only in it's revolutionary nature and a more conservative approach in it's implementation is warranted? Interesting hypothesis, but I'd like to see more data.
"Imagine you tried to have a capitalist revolution in feudal Europe. Can you imagine that would go very well? "
I dunno, I believe that's usually called the Industrial Revolution.
Your point about referencing socialist revolutionaries is indeed part of what I'm going for, and is why I'm very reluctant to align myself with vanguardists, but we're not discussing the efficacy of revolutionary socialist parties. I meant precisely what I said, if a state is socialist-in-name-only, then how can you compare it to an actual socialist economic model. If these countries we're discussing ran a system of worker ownership, that I'm simply unaware of, then I'd love to be provided with some names so I can study their history.
European feudalism was over by about ~1500, the Industrial Revolution started in about ~1750, but it certainly makes for a cute soundbite. People on the left often cite the enclosures[1] in England as the beginnings of capitalism. Laws such as vagrancy[2] laws were in place to force people to work, land which was previously agreed to be communal was taken into private hands. If you consider this to be a 'capitalist revolution' then it could easily be argued
[1] This has a lot to do with the lefts definition of capitalism, which I recognise is not universal so enclosures being the origin of capitalism isn't an argument which is likely to be fruitful, especially on HN.
> The point is that every single real world attempt at getting to socialism has been bad, so why wouldnt future attempts run into the same problems?
The problem is that "every single real world attempt at getting to socialism" has been inspired by the same ( bad ) implementors, using the same ( bad ) mechanisms, without anyone trying to implement socialism from scratch by going back to the source of the ideology as opposed to looking at other dictators who used the premise of socialism to get into power without actually caring about socialism itself.
Venezuela is a corrupt place with socialism being implemented as a means to launder money as opposed to implement social safety programs, it's the same as the "Democratic" Republic of Korea or Congo.
Capitalism wouldn't really help a corrupt country like Venezuela, but Socialism was making some good progress in another Latin American country... Nicaragua, weren't it for the Contras.
The rest is history.
I would call Norway socialist. Not because the government owns everything, but because society distributes a large fraction of all earnings. Note, defacto tax rates are what's important. Greece may have a high nominal tax rate, but nobody actually pays it. The US has a 15% tax rate on capital gains irregardless of what the nominal top tax rate is. Further, the US pretends Social Security is not an income tax.
By comparison the USSR, China, and North Korea all pay / paid some lip service to communism, but if you look at the people at the top it was not even close to communism.
PS: The real world is complicated. If you promote revolution you generally don't get whatever the revolutions talking points where.
I think you'll find it easy to play up No True Scotsman to help with your cognitive dissonance here. The reality is that every practical implementation of socialism uses the government as a proxy of ownership of the means of production. Venezuela is Socialist. Socialists need to own up to it. No more No True Scotsman guys, we've been playing this game since the rise of Communism. Its time to admit that certain economic systems just don't work. How much more historical proof and human suffering can you possibly need? You sound like those people who deny the moon landing. There will never be enough proof for you it seems.
The point isn't that the "textbook" definition of socialism is bad. The point is that every single real world attempt at getting to socialism has been bad, so why wouldnt future attempts run into the same problems?