Okay, first of all, with the arguable exception of trolling, there is really no need to bother engaging with confirmed antisocialists (especially billionaires). It doesn’t matter how many sources you offer if they have no interest in checking one for more than ten seconds. You can’t force or compel them to be interested in learning; they have to hit rock‐bottom first, then—when they have little or nothing to lose and it almost seems like life couldn’t possibly get any worse—they’ll be more open to socialism. For now, you are better off doing something else.

Twoth, the response ‘Venezuela isn’t socialist’, while agreeable in principle, just isn’t a very productive or interesting response to offer. The accusation ‘socialism destroyed Venezuela’ is wrong not simply because the BRV is presocialist. It’s also wrong because it ignores why leftist politicians assumed power in the Venezuela in the first place, and it is wrong because it ignores the devastation that antisocialists—both from within and without—have been afflicting upon it for decades. The sanctions, guarimbas, the destruction of foodstuff, and so on—these should not be ignored, trivialized, or misjudged as ‘our responsibility’, and repeatedly doing either only encourages everybody to think of antisocialists as unaccountable for their atrocities.

Lastly (and call me an ultraleftist if you’d like), I’d argue that the definition of socialism that we should prefer is the negation of capitalism, that is to say, the abolition of generalized commodity production, the law of value, and capital. Seizing the means of production is good, of course, but is it enough to prevent exploitation? I’m afraid that the answer is no, not in a market economy.

I don’t want to sound too harsh on the SPGB, as they’re clearly well intentioned and probably nice people who belong to the same lower classes as we do, but replying critically to the upper classes is like trying to stop a Magach with a stone.