I think this is actually ok - socialist does have a definition, and from the brief rundown of policies it sounds like it is a fairly accurate description.

Regarding: "their socialist policies, which have included providing heavy subsidies for food and fuel, and the recent nationalizations of Argentina’s largest airline and of private pension funds."

In particular, subsidizing food and fuel are not socialist. They could be called redistributive, I suppose. And, my heavens, is saving our government-owned pension program, Social Security, a socialist plot?

Fuller,

I guess you require repitition for comprehension (or at least any chance of it): Empty snark is no substitute for argument. I explained why your initial comment was nonsensical. For you to persistently reply with only empty snark would feel embarrassing to you if you had enough sense to realize how pathetic it looks.

If you disagree with my take on your initial comment, and if you actually do have a valid criticism of my initial comment, go right on ahead and provide it. Or you could just continue repeatedly calling me a doo doo head with your eyes tighly shut and your hands tightly covering your ears.

Fuller,

I guess you require repitition for comprehension (or at least any chance of it): Empty snark is no substitute for argument. I explained why your initial comment was nonsensical. For you to persistently reply with only empty snark would feel embarrassing to you if you had enough sense to realize how pathetic it looks.

If you disagree with my take on your initial comment, and if you actually do have a valid criticism of my initial comment, go right on ahead and provide it. Or you could just continue repeatedly calling me a doo doo head with your eyes tighly shut and your hands tightly covering your ears.

Fuller,

I guess you require repitition for comprehension (or at least any chance of it): Empty snark is no substitute for argument. I explained why your initial comment was nonsensical. For you to persistently reply with only empty snark would feel embarrassing to you if you had enough sense to realize how pathetic it looks.

If you disagree with my take on your initial comment, and if you actually do have a valid criticism of my initial comment, go right on ahead and provide it. Or you could just continue repeatedly calling me a doo doo head with your eyes tighly shut and your hands tightly covering your ears.

Fuller,

I guess you require repitition for comprehension (or at least any chance of it): Empty snark is no substitute for argument. I explained why your initial comment was nonsensical. For you to persistently reply with only empty snark would feel embarrassing to you if you had enough sense to realize how pathetic it looks.

If you disagree with my take on your initial comment, and if you actually do have a valid criticism of my initial comment, go right on ahead and provide it. Or you could just continue repeatedly calling me a doo doo head with your eyes tighly shut and your hands tightly covering your ears.

I fully agree and I think that the same should apply to the words capitalism and markets. Capitalism was coined by Karl Marx and the word, like socialism, gets in the way of serious discussion. Rather than talk about capitalism and markets we should discuss what people should and should not be allowed to do economically.

After all you start a communist commune in the USA. Some have. You can move in with friends and family live communally.

I guess we just have to ask what the fascist party has to offer.

Drew Miller wrote, I think this is actually ok - socialist does have a definition, and from the brief rundown of policies it sounds like it is a fairly accurate description.

Yes and no. The article states, for example, "...which have included providing heavy subsidies for food and fuel, and the recent nationalizations of Argentina’s largest airline and of private pension funds."

Socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production. Subsidizing food and fuel doesn't fit. Nominally one could argue that pension funds are "producing" something since finance is an "industrial sector," but given that most finance is just rent collection that doesn't produce anything of value, that's dubious.

Nationalizing the airline is socialist, though.

Many governments which are not considered socialist heavily subsidize or outright run national airlines, so this isn't really a good criterion for socialism in the strict sense either. Going by the listed actions, the government of Argentina would be no more socialistic than the world average, though it could be a movement left from the norm of right-wing Latin American dictatorships. The article is written from the point of view of foreign businessmen and politicians who like such dictatorships.

skeptonomist wrote, Many governments which are not considered socialist heavily subsidize or outright run national airlines, so this isn't really a good criterion for socialism in the strict sense either.

Of course it's a good criterion. The dictionary definition of socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production. An airline produces something, namely personal transport via air.

Just because governments that aren't purely socialist have socialist components doesn't mean those components aren't socialist.

Whether it's a good thing that they be socialist depends IMHO on the market. Health care should be socialist because of the dramatic market failures in that sector, for example.

"Socialism is government ownership or control of the means of production. Subsidizing food and fuel doesn't fit."

Some forms of socialism involve state ownership/control of the means of production. Others, like anarchism, reject that as just state capitalism and no great improvement on the current system.

These (libertarian) socialists argue for workers' control of the means of production, not state control. As an anarchist, I would suggest that this is far more in line with socialist ideals (such as liberty and equality) than nationalisation (which just replaces the boss by the state rather than getting rid of bosses!).

Nor should we forget that explicitly capitalist governments have nationalised companies (in the UK, for example, Conservative governments nationalised companies in the 1970s). Nationalisation is not inherently socialist or socialistic.

Is transportation production or a service? Is the building of roads and airports by governments socialism? Would it be socialism if the government built railroads and is Amtrak socialism? Does air transport become socialism when the government subsidizes the production of airplanes and the training of pilots (through the military)?

The definition of socialism can be arbitrary, and the nuances are not the point. Dean's point was that the article rather obviously uses "socialist" in a pejorative way to disparage the Argentine government. The viewpoint of the writer is that of one who dislikes the Peronist government.

skeptonomist wrote,Is transportation production or a service?

Clearly both, as a service is (usually) a form of production.

Is the building of roads and airports by governments socialism? Would it be socialism if the government built railroads and is Amtrak socialism?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Just because it's socialism doesn't mean it's bad.

Particularly roads: that's a type of good it would be very hard for the private sector to supply without massive rent-collection opportunities.

Does air transport become socialism when the government subsidizes the production of airplanes and the training of pilots (through the military)?

It's only socialism if government owns or controls the means of production. Subsidies and redistribution don't involve control of the means of production, so they're not socialism.

The definition of socialism can be arbitrary,...

While the definition of any word is arbitrary, insofar as we're free to redefine it, it's well accepted---and written in dictionaries---that "socialism" is government ownership or control of the means of production.

...and the nuances are not the point.

Getting definitions right is not a "nuance."

Dean's point was that the article rather obviously uses "socialist" in a pejorative way to disparage the Argentine government. The viewpoint of the writer is that of one who dislikes the Peronist government.

I'm not responding to Dean's point. I'm responding to various commenters on this thread who refuse to acknowledge what the dictionary definition of "socialist" is.

I would hardly use it as a perjorative myself, as I think that (a) health insurance should be socialist, (b) medicine (doctors, etc) should be socialist.

Anarcho wrote, Some forms of socialism involve state ownership/control of the means of production. Others, like anarchism, reject that as just state capitalism and no great improvement on the current system.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that "libertarian socialism" is as you describe. No, in the sense that "socialism," without any modifier in front of it, means government (i.e., state) ownership or control of the means of production.

"without any modifier in front of it, means government (i.e., state) ownership or control of the means of production."

Wrong. There is NO government in anarchism and frankly socialism, because it acts as the producer. Understand that, except that. The ownership of production is controlled by willingly, cooperative individuals who agree to live communally. Amazing people can't understand the concept. Much like Free Market intellectualism.

But it is the practice that is the problem. It doesn't work in nature much like free market intellectualism. It generally turns into tyranny because of the nature of people.

Alot of whats called 'socialism' is the mistake. It is actually fascism or "old world" model which of course comes into pre-christian era.

If any government subsidizing food and owning transport businesses fits the definition of socialism, then you would be hard-pressed to find any non-socialist government in recent history. In particular, the US has been subsidizing food at least since the Nixon administration and also owns a transport business and many other means of production.

Maybe some would agree that the Nixon, or the Reagan or Bush, administration fits the definition of "socialism" but then the term becomes rather vacuous.

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles Ugg Boots UK and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!