The situation in Venezuela is not the result of US and European attacks, much as their state propaganda would have you believe. It's the result of 19 years of high corruption, and since the death of Chavez, even worse leadership (Maduro is a moron, plain and simple). They, much like the Kirchner governments in Argentina, and the Mujica government in Uruguay, squandered resources to buy good will, spending money they didn't have (and stealing what money they did have).

> Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations?

Venezuela has nearly 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, so I think it makes sense to ask why they have done so much worse than other countries. It can't just be due to US meddling.

"The US and europe attacking venezuela..."

Speaking as a Venezuelan, what the bloody hell are you talking about?

"...and blaming their failures on state socialism..."

Venezuela's failures are the failure of state socialism. Price controls, capital controls, expropriations, redistribution policies, central planning, disregard for property rights, and other insane economic policies tanked the country. High oil prices were the only thing hiding the structural damage these policies were creating for years.

China is not a socialist country.

They are more socialist than capitalist. Besides, there is no pure socialist or capitalist society on earth.

Using that logic, the US isn't a capitalist nation and venezuela isn't a socialist nation. And the guy's assertion that venezuela is suffereing because of state socialism is pointless.

China and venezuela are both socialist countries. You can't just decide to accept one because it fits into your worldview and reject the other because it doesn't.

>Besides, there is no pure socialist or capitalist society on earth.

Yes there is. All nations on earth adhere to the capitalist mode of production, entailing the following: primacy of wage labour, capital accumulation by the owners of the means of production, majority capitalist control over the means of production, the existence of private property and the fact that commodities (which have use and exchange value) are produced rather than simple good (which have only use value).

This is what Marxists mean when they talk about the difference between capitalism and Socialism.

>China and venezuela are both socialist countries.

Why? What precisely makes them socialist, and by whose definition? North Korea calls itself "democratic".

> They are more socialist than capitalist.

No they're not. Production isn't controlled by the public. China doesn't even classic social-democratic policies like free health care, free higher education or a strong welfare system. It's much more a cut-throat proto-capitalist state, which happens to also also a not a democracy.

China is an autocracy, which is a form of government associated with the east block that used to call itself socialist and communist. Socialism is an economic system that China doesn't have.

"the US isn't a capitalist nation" - ok buddy

In 2017, 36% of the US GDP is government spending, including federal, state and local governments. Of the remainder, most is highly regulated giving government specific controls over how companies can speak, hire, employ, operate, manufacture, and how their ownership is determined and profits distributed.

At what level of government control over the economy do you draw the line between socialism and capitalism? It can't be 100%, that's called communism. If you draw it at 50% for socialism, a very good argument exists that we are there right now, just establish that the government controls anywhere near 20% of the decisions private businesses make.

>At what level of government control over the economy do you draw the line between socialism and capitalism?

No level, where do you get this idea that Socialism and capitalism exist on a scale between government control over the economy and no control over the economy? I can't imagine what would arouse such an opinion. Marx never said "Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more Socialist it is". That's complete rubbish.

>It can't be 100%, that's called communism.

No, it's not. Communism, like other anarhcist ideologies, has no "government control", and this is painfully obvious by reading Marx's discussion on the self-regulating sphere of activity.

And this is of course ignoring the fact that in Marx's time, Socialism and Communism had the same meaning. Their distinction is almost entirely a Leninist one.

Here's the thing: Socialism isn't about government control over a capitalist economy, and it's not about acting like a capitalist but on a global scale. That's called state capitalism.

I was talking about real world definitions of socialism, not fantasies Marx used to trick people into buying into his concepts.

The real world definition of socialism is government control of economic activities. And there has never been a "socialist" economy without dictatorship and fascism. Socialism is a mandatory step on the road to fascism.

That wasn't what he said.

The point is not so much that these countries are socialist, I agree they’re not, although they have some aspects of socialism. The point is they’re not integrated into the western system. That’s the big distinction or cause of schism.

I'm not sure how that statement can be taken seriously. Puppet leaders of industry, are extensions of the party. The ability to act independently isn't much different than the leeway given to a US executive agency head.

Socialism isn't ever absolute...as if the Nordic Model isn't "socialist" either.