Now to Venezuela. You fail to comprehend that an ALREADY capitalistic world isn't going to invest in an ALREADY poor country with low property rights and security - not going to happen - meaning that they are essentially cut off from the world, hence their problems; but it doesn't prove that Venezuela is a failure, just that the "market" doesn't like it. Let's face it: if you believe something to be yours, you're not going to hand it over to someone intent on destroying it.
They have tons of oil, if they had exported that, and divided the profits amongst all citizens, they could have lived in this sort of "utopic" socialism.
But it didnt happen. Why?
Because government enterprises are always inneficient. Only private businesses can operate in efficiency
Aramco, no?
You are bubbling something without a second thought if what you say is actually true
Then check the wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_AramcoIt has a President and CEO, which means it operates like a private corporations, where 100% of the shares are owned by the government.
So it has the structure of a private corporation, and only the shares are owned by the government.
That is not the same as a communist factory where the people vote directly in direct democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CooperativeAnd even the cooperative doesnt fit the marxist ideology.
So I`m sure when communists talk about "common ownership of the means of production" they dont have any real world examples of that, because all organization entities are somewhat centrally controlled and have some form of private property.
Marxists just cant comprehend that private property is a totally natural phenomena.