That seems a bit excessive. Surely we should give Socialism another 30 or 40 tries before finally declaring that rigid state command & control of the economy and most aspects of existence through the extreme and constant application of violence, doesn't work.

Just because after a century of repeated failed attempts there has yet to be a single successful Socialist outcome, that doesn't mean one day with enough death and destruction, that grand ambition of vast material production [1] won't be achieved.

[1] One of the much touted original claims of Socialist doctrine, was that it would lead to vast material abundance that would best Capitalism. At its core was materialism ideologically, espoused by all the thought-leaders that were responsible for creating Socialism.

State Socialism is not the only form of socialism. Libertarian Socialists predicted in the 19th century that state socialism would lead to tyranny.

Let me share my favourite political quote by Mikhail Bakunin:

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

I think the 20th century has proven him correct on both counts. We need both socialism and freedom in equal measure, which is exactly what North-European social democracies are trying to do. Imperfectly still, but it's already better than any alternative I've seen.

No, Venezuela is the text-book example of destructive policies and corruption. Those can exist in any kind of economic system.

Sure, you can point out that "it isn't the gunshot that kills you, it's the bleeding and organ failure" (as in microcolonel's comment), and there are plenty of other things that can cause bleeding and organ failure, but that doesn't change the fact that no matter how many times you try shooting yourself with the gun, historically it has always resulted in the same thing.