(08-05-2018, 09:45 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(08-04-2018, 10:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: Norway has been successful, and nationalized its oil production around the same time that Venezuela did.
And Norway has offered more welfare for a longer period of time than Venezuela.  
When the government takes over the oil company, maybe they just sit back and collect reasonable dividends as Norway's did, and continue investing in new production, or, maybe the government decides to take more than a reasonable dividend, leaving no money for drilling new wells, and fires anyone who disagrees, leaving no one who knows how pumping oil actually works and no money to figure it out. That's what Venezuela's did.
Both went fully socialist, meaning government ownership of the means of production, but only one had catastrophe.
Socialism creates opportunity for catastrophe, but does not guarantee it.  It also helps if your nationalization process doesn't cause your biggest trading partner to embargo you, as Cuba's did.

Alaska also collects the value of its oil. Does that make it socialist? Selling the minerals you own is not socialist, even if the land is owned by the government.

And Norway, a small, all-white, Northern European monocultural state is not representative of the US, or very many other countries. The tax per household there is around $100K. For an additional $100K per household Americans could get a lot better education and healthcare than what Norway provides. If your best case example is Norway, then you are just proving my point.

The text book or dictionary definition of socialism is when government owns "the means of production" to use a phrase that the translators of Marx have given us. Any productive asset could be thought of as the "means of production."
So yes, Alaska's ownership of its oil fields is an example of socialism.
A related, but separate, concept is the welfare state. The welfare state is where the government spends money to help the poor and improve overall quality of life.
Socialism is more about how the government gets money, and welfare state is more about what the government does with the money. Alaska and Jacksonville (JEA) have more socialism and less welfare state, while England and Canada have less socialism and more welfare state.
Bernie and Alexandra talk much more frequently about expanding the welfare state. They almost never talk about having the government take over certain industries or productive activities. When asked how she intended to pay for her new welfare state activities, Alexandra could have said something socialist like "we'll have the government takeover ExxonMobil." Instead she said something Progressive, which was just "we'll tax more"

---