In your previous posts you've conflated Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism together, using those terms interchangably and considering them interchangeable since you want to murder anyone who is them.
You have not been able to demonstrate that you know the difference between Anarchism and Socialism and that they're different but related things, you have been unable to distinguish between Communism and other kinds of Socialism, Marxism from other kinds of Communism, Marxist-Leninism from other forms of Marxism, or Stalinism and Maoism from other forms of Marxism-Leninism
For these two lines, it's not that I don't recognize them as different. It's that my objection to them is identical: They all constantly fail, or are so far behind Capitalism they might as well have failed. Every time they're tried, they fail or fall
severely behind. China doesn't operate under Maoism, it only grew to be a significant economic power when it shifted to what I like to call "Capitalism with government veto"; very little regulation, very few restrictions, but the government has full ability to demand anything from any company at any time and gets it to the best of the company's ability to provide or the company stops legally existing.
On the matter of Chile vs Venezuella you have yet to demonstrate that Marxist or Socialist Chile would have been under the same resource constraints and have the same resources available as Venezuela.
My point has been that it's failed in a huge number of areas, over and over again, for rather consistent reasons of incompetence and corruption, and nobody's wanting to go outside the same script that's failed dozens of times. What keeps being traced as the cause of failure is government bureaucrats not knowing how to manage abruptly nationalized businesses, and this was very much in progress in Chile.
And finally, you use a failure of liberal capitalism, it's hostility to competing systems of economics or organization, to attack Socialism. Like you are literally victim blaming
It's more a matter of realistic outcomes. Again, less bad. In the
best case scenario, the fact that Chile decided to go Socialist
in the Americas during the Cold War, when the developed world was about two steps away from genocidal extermination of the ideology
in all forms, would still lead to a military intervention to remove the Socialists from power.
It's like trying to become Socialist at the start of an industrial revolution, instead of well after it. The theory does not work, because the surrounding circumstances aren't permitting of it. The collapse could still be ultimately blamed on them for
knowingly adopting a system that would bring war upon them at that point in time, regardless of how they implemented it. This is not your standard victim blaming, this is taking an action with
official policies of interventions at that point in time. This is akin to telling a black man who's formed an actual family to stay away from the gangs, then blaming them for the damage done to their kids when they end up locked up in jail as a drug patsy. They did an action they knew, or ought to have known, would have caused extensive harm to those they were responsible for, which is a wrong regardless of why it occurred. It can be considered unjust that it occurred, but there's a known, accurate causal link: Become Socialist, get invaded by Capitalists. If it's just the
words, then spin away to get good PR. If it's the policy, then keep the alarms from being raised by focusing on the periphrial and do it gradually to good success before that point so that you at least give a precedent for Socialism not
always failing or being replaced with Capitalism.
since you have shown that you do not accept proof even when it was shown to you, such as the graph of Chile's GDP during the Pinochet years and after his rule.
In case you
still don't understand my argument, it's that Pinochet was
less damaging. He clearly set the stage for economic growth, the extended period after his rule began in the last year of it, and the economy didn't severely
degrade under his rule past the first two years.
Again, less bad, not good. Best thing he did was leave office peacefully. My support of him comes solely from overthrowing in-power Socialists.
Here's another source for Socialism's failures, this time from Lumen Learning, with its own sources for a number of its claims. Socialism doesn't work. It never has, and has collapsed into squalor and dictatorship for nearly identical reasons every time, and the forces driving those reasons were very much present in Chile.
