I don't think anyone in this thread is blaming it all on social programs. Even the opening post mentioned that corruption was largely to blame.

If you want to get into discussions on socialism, one might ask the question whether nationalization of industries presents an opportunity for corruption or if socialist ideology can present a cover for kleptocracy. It looks a lot like that's what happened in Venezuela.

You're right, it's not all. Still, I don't get why it's even brought up. Seems like authoritarian government, nationalization of industries, and general screwing about with market forces would be far more important.

Or are people just equating nationalizing the oil industry and making it illegal to get money out of the country with "social programs"?

"Seems like authoritarian government, nationalization of industries, and general screwing about with market forces would be far more important."

I'd agree, though I think you could describe land redistribution as a 'social program.'

I would describe land redistribution as radical revolutionary upheaval of established order. In my view this is not worth the damage to the social fabric it causes. It's an intrinsically violent thing to do, even if no shots are fired. It can only ever occur under conditions of extreme duress. "Give us your land or we kill you". Not a good approach to positive social change.

Taxation is the more reasonable way to do this. It is also confiscatory but it does so in a way where the level of duress is much reduced, and representation, agency, and participation are possible.

I would offer a provisional definition of a social spending program as a program with humanitarian goals that is funded by taxation. Land redistribution is not taxation (just pure confiscation) and so doesn't meet my definition of social program.

Maybe you think I'm just making a semantics argument and splitting hairs but I think its a meaningful difference. Land redistribution is the classic case of "peasant uprising gone bad".