I would think most people say socialism in this case because it was put up by many influential people as a proud of example of socialism back when times were good. It's the same thing when socialists point to failing capitalistic systems and say "capitalism".

It's the problem of people not wanting to properly discuss things and always fall back on blaming people based on labels.

>Norway's doing something very similar to Venezuela as far as nationalized oil going to the public purse, and it's working out great for them.

They did it in a completely different way, though, and the funds were managed and executed differently. Norway helped establish a company and essentially behave as shareholders, with their share revenues going into a fund that reinvests it in stock internationally. They deliberately do not depend on it to subsidize social programs entirely and only withdraw 3% per year.

Venezuela's leadership actively controlled the fund and used it to support wide-reaching social policies that could only be sustained with new revenues, pushing more oil production and making it a larger percentage of their economy which ultimately caused massive failure when the oil prices went down, they were producing at high capacity already and they couldn't get rid of the social programs.

So the difference is that Norway uses it carefully, while Venezuela uses it recklessly. It's not the idea that's the problem, it's the way it's applied.

Sure, the idea that the State can get revenues from investments in the economy and put it in a sovereign fund is not the underlying problem.