What you had in Russia was statism not socialism - power and wealth were concentrated in the communist party rather than shared with the people.
Norway is a liberal democracy. The workers don't own the means of production there.
And the Soviet Union was indeed a socialist state. Statism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive, and being both is exactly the point of a dictatorship of the proletariat. That it didn't bring what it promised is just one more tired argument. Scotsmen are never true socialists for some reason.
All in all, Venezuela's woes aren't all to blame on socialism, but you can't really help but point out that it's a direct application of the principles layed out in The Road to Serfdom. The State grew by violating private property to redistribute it, scared off any outside investment, consolidating into an all-in policy on oil. And that investment had to be controlled, which means loyalty became more important than competence to recruit oil industry officials. And the rest was just one market fluctuation away.
In fact I feel this is the main miscommunication that causes the "it wasn't real X" debate. People use the term X to refer both to the goal and the method of implementation.
This is exactly the same thing that happened to originally collectivist farming in Soviet Russia - it quickly got nationalized or virtually nationalized by centrally mandated quotas.
I don't think this is a well known, or even considered true. Take the biggest socialist countries, Russian and China. Compare them to what the conditions were like in those countries before socialist states took over. You will see massive improvements.
I think the Soviets did achieve incredible things, but I think that's largely the result of abandoning profit as the sole criterion of whether an activity is worthwhile: capitalist societies tend to spend most of their productive labour on keeping profitable hamster-wheels spinning (like the housing market, for instance).
It's only far away leftists/communists that are still of this opinion. They still preach that political decision making should be independent of economic and market factors (in other words: they should be elected/conquer power (social democrats/marxist view) and make decisions ignoring economic reality).
And of course, please ignore that they were largely singing the praises of Chavez and Maduro when this problem was just getting started. Sentences like "Finally a leader that stands up to big banks" and so on were common.
So not only were they singing the praises of these disastrous leaders. They were explicitly calling out the cause of this economic destruction as the best thing ever. And of course, now the consequences become more clear, they must distance themselves from it just like they distance themselves from the fact that the biggest communist state to ever exist voluntarily started a bigger holocaust than Nazi Germany ...
Not that I expect this will convince you of the problems with ignoring economics, but I do hope this can at least make you VERY careful in considering such ideas and give at least some time to looking for problems.
Russia hung on for a while, caused the second largest amount of human suffering in history (only second because they had way less people to start with), and eventually economically collapsed despite having incredible natural resources. They rebuilt along capitalist principles and were doing well until recently. I've read some very interesting articles which talk about how it is almost mathematically impossible to create a smoothly functioning planned economy the way Russia was trying to do it. I wish i could remember where they were. They had smart people who really tried. When the incentives are not lined up properly for the workers and managers to benefit directly from their own production, it is just too hard to control all the variables.