Governments as Mega-Corporations / the folly of nationalization?

[The Idler]

Are governments substantially different from mega-corporations? Is the army analogous to private security, welfare to employee benefits and democracy to employee feedback? If they are simply corporations on a bigger scale then is there any socialist case to be made in nationalizing industries?

[Ismail]

Generally socialists see capitalist nationalization as either state capitalism or an attempt to temporarily save capitalism by the capitalists. Under socialism the state takes a new, socialist character and the bourgeoisie class (which runs corporations and the government) does not exist, it is replaced by the proletariat.

Socialist nationalization is different from its capitalist counterpart. Under socialism, everything (or, well, as much as is necessary for a proletarian state barring a few cooperative farms and such) is technically nationalized; that is it is not privately owned. Under socialism (when it has properly consolidated itself) there is absolutely no private ownership whatsoever, and as a result the conditions in which a bourgeois class can form out of it are not met. (It'd be like a serf coming out of capitalism, or a peasant)

History has shown us (and we are seeing right now) that capitalists happily nationalize banks and such to save the system. There were also a few nationalizations done under U.S. President Truman during a brief period of national emergency IIRC. These show that capitalism is just as capable of nationalization as socialism is, but there's a catch; capitalist nationalization still supports capitalism.

Let's take Nazi Germany as a state capitalist example. Capitalists (the bourgeoisie) still exist, but the state directs them to achieve national goals. Nationalization in this case is meant to benefit the government (who use it for stabilization and to claim it is working "for the people" by directing corporations) and the corporations (who benefit from active government intervention.) In the end, it's still capitalism, the classes are unchanged (bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, proletarian) and the system lives on.

The socialist case for nationalization in a capitalist system is IMO a flawed one. It simply switches power from the bourgeoisie in the company to the bourgeoisie in the government, both of whom work together in either case. Nationalization calls are generally caused by the belief that a capitalist government can be turned "socialist" (as far as workers rights is concerned) by "reforming" capitalism. In practice this results in state capitalism and nothing is fundamentally changed. These types still exist, they're called hardline social-democrats. The social-democrats were reformist socialists who held that nationalization would cure the ills of capitalism. Today, since that nationalization did inhibit the company bourgeoisie somewhat in certain occasions (among other economic reasons), these types are now market capitalists (the leaders of these movements went from petite-bourgeoisie to bourgeoisie in a rapid period of time) and barely any social-democrat calls himself or herself a socialist anymore except in the most superficial way, or if they're hardliners who subscribe to "nationalization = socialism."

[Invincible Summer]

Are governments substantially different from mega-corporations? Is the army analogous to private security, welfare to employee benefits and democracy to employee feedback? If they are simply corporations on a bigger scale then is there any socialist case to be made in nationalizing industries?


IMO, the only difference between government and multi-national corporations is that the people (usually) don't turn to corporations in times of need.

I think state capitalism is almost more dangerous than "normal" capitalism, as it requires the populous to be more dependent on the state. Also, I think state capitalism has a detrimental effect on the revolutionary movement; if the government nationalizes many industries and becomes this monolithic figure to the people, then it is more intimidating to stand up to it.

[The Idler]

Generally socialists see capitalist nationalization as either state capitalism or an attempt to temporarily save capitalism by the capitalists. Under socialism the state takes a new, socialist character and the bourgeoisie class (which runs corporations and the government) does not exist, it is replaced by the proletariat.

Socialist nationalization is different from its capitalist counterpart. Under socialism, everything (or, well, as much as is necessary for a proletarian state barring a few cooperative farms and such) is technically nationalized; that is it is not privately owned. Under socialism (when it has properly consolidated itself) there is absolutely no private ownership whatsoever, and as a result the conditions in which a bourgeois class can form out of it are not met. (It'd be like a serf coming out of capitalism, or a peasant)

History has shown us (and we are seeing right now) that capitalists happily nationalize banks and such to save the system. There were also a few nationalizations done under U.S. President Truman during a brief period of national emergency IIRC. These show that capitalism is just as capable of nationalization as socialism is, but there's a catch; capitalist nationalization still supports capitalism.

Let's take Nazi Germany as a state capitalist example. Capitalists (the bourgeoisie) still exist, but the state directs them to achieve national goals. Nationalization in this case is meant to benefit the government (who use it for stabilization and to claim it is working "for the people" by directing corporations) and the corporations (who benefit from active government intervention.) In the end, it's still capitalism, the classes are unchanged (bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, proletarian) and the system lives on.

The socialist case for nationalization in a capitalist system is IMO a flawed one. It simply switches power from the bourgeoisie in the company to the bourgeoisie in the government, both of whom work together in either case. Nationalization calls are generally caused by the belief that a capitalist government can be turned "socialist" (as far as workers rights is concerned) by "reforming" capitalism. In practice this results in state capitalism and nothing is fundamentally changed. These types still exist, they're called hardline social-democrats. The social-democrats were reformist socialists who held that nationalization would cure the ills of capitalism. Today, since that nationalization did inhibit the company bourgeoisie somewhat in certain occasions (among other economic reasons), these types are now market capitalists (the leaders of these movements went from petite-bourgeoisie to bourgeoisie in a rapid period of time) and barely any social-democrat calls himself or herself a socialist anymore except in the most superficial way, or if they're hardliners who subscribe to "nationalization = socialism."
But, what about "healthy workers states"? Could even they be considered simply mega-corporations?

[The Idler]

Not so much whether nationalized corporations are the same as privatized corporations but whether (even in states without a free market or profit) the government can still be compared to a mega-corporation.

[Cumannach]

A nationalized corporation pours it's profits into the state coffers, from where such profits may find their way into health, education, social welfare, social housing and so on. There's no chance of the profits of a private corporation contributing even minutely to any social programs.

A nationalized enterprise is also, at worst, under the control of the national capitalist class which can't be any worse than being under the control of a minority capitalist faction, at best, partly susceptible to popular pressure in certain aspects, including the setting of it's prices, which affects the working class if the enterprise is something like, say, a bus company or fuel supplier.

State owned enterprises are also a good visible example of the redundancy of private capitalist ownership, of the capitalist relations of production.

I don't see how socialists can fail to support nationalization and fight against privatisation.

Surely, agitation for the goal of nationalization of any one enterprise can possibly have the following effects; educating the masses around the issue of capitalist and non-capitalist property and socialist ownership; demonstrating the resistance of the capitalist class to this expropriation by the workers, even if in the framework of the bourgeois state - revealing class antagonism; possibly showing to the masses that non-forceful bourgeois democratic methods are inadequate in their struggle to achieve their aims; then educating the masses of the neccesity of social revolution if their aims are to be met.

I think it's quite fertile ground for socialists, and if it's 'diverting' focus away from setting up workers councils or something, I think socialists need to learn multi-tasking. I just don't think blanket condemnation of meaningful social reforms is right. I mean you can say, it just placates the working class and cools their ardor- well why haven't the socialists been stirring up, building upon this mass popular sentiment that lead to the concession of social reforms? Why can't they show some skill in channeling and consolidating these movements? Why haven't they educated these movements? Radicalized them?