State ownership of capital.

[eyedrop]

Should we support it or not? Most leftist organisations always scream out at the slightest hint of privatisation of state owned enterprices, although very few of those support anymore nationalising.

Pros of state owned capital.

*Profits extorted through ownership of capital can be used to finance welfare state. (It's not like you need to be a gifted entrepeneur to make a profit)
*Makes the economy arguably less dependant on how an investable country it is.

Cons and neutrals

*As a capitalist actor the state is forced to act exactly like a capitalist and develops anti-worker sentiment as an employer trying to get the highest profit.
*As the state is a capital owner it will be tempted to divert capital (if the country gets more progressive reforms) to countries better suited for investment.
*The state will never willingly give up control over it's own capital.
*It's unlikely for countries to get much more nationalised industries as nationalisation gives the country a bad investment security rating, which causes capital flight. The more likely cases for nationalised capital is new industries, where private capital owners haven't gotten a hold yet.
*The inherent instability of nationalised industries; They are easily privatised, but much harder to nationalise.


Should we as revolutionaries even care? The state aren't really an inherent better employer, although it can partially direct the profit it gains to keep the welfare state.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

state capitalism is still capitalism

[Nwoye]

I understand your cautious support here, but it still must be emphasized that capital being in the hands of the state just means it's being controlled by a different section of the elite (or maybe the same guys just indirectly). It's not hard to imagine a situation where an industry is nationalized and it still serves the interests of a ruling minority or of capital (hell that's what happened in the soviet union to an extent).

So I understand that when asking "what practical reforms can we work for today?", the nationalization of industry seems a logical choice - however, I think we have to understand that this may not amount to much without larger working class representation in the state (something I don't see happening).

[eyedrop]

state capitalism is still capitalism
All types of capitalism sucks, but some versions sucks less. You can't really disagree that the russian working class suffered enormously in the wake of the sovjet collapse.

State capitalism will always gravitate towards regular capitalism as the ones in power has a material interest in restructuring the economy in a way which gives them a greater access to the profits.



I understand your cautious support here, but it still must be emphasized that capital being in the hands of the state just means it's being controlled by a different section of the elite (or maybe the same guys just indirectly). It's not hard to imagine a situation where an industry is nationalized and it still serves the interests of a ruling minority or of capital (hell that's what happened in the soviet union to an extent). Well yeah, it's a given that it will be controlled by a minority. Still as long as it is controlled through the state the people in control can't siphon of all the profit's for themself. If not why did the russian state officials sell out the state owned enterprices to themself, instead of just still keeping control of them through their positions in the state.


So I understand that when asking "what practical reforms can we work for today?", the nationalization of industry seems a logical choice - however, I think we have to understand that this may not amount to much without larger working class representation in the state (something I don't see happening).
I don't really have that much faith in more nationalization happening in todays climate. But I can't help myself from choosing sides when right wing parties are eleectionering with a party platform of privatising our oil, alluminum and power industry, all of which are enormously profitable industries for the state. Which are again used to prop up a scandinavian style welfare state. Supporting the leftwing parties doesn't really help that much though, as they have been busy privatising themselves the last 20 years

[Psy]

I don't really have that much faith in more nationalization happening in todays climate.


Actually we'd probably see a rash of nationalizations as this crisis of negative rate of profit (and the rate of profit is currently negative as all profit currently only comes from canalizing the global means of production) deepens. There will come a point where large imperial nation states just can't allow capitalists to maintain their profits by destroying the productive capacity of the state and the imperial interests of these large capitalist powers would give imperial states no choice but to nationalize key industries to maintain the fighting effectiveness of their armed forces to protect their asses from revolutions at home and abroad.



I understand your cautious support here, but it still must be emphasized that capital being in the hands of the state just means it's being controlled by a different section of the elite (or maybe the same guys just indirectly). It's not hard to imagine a situation where an industry is nationalized and it still serves the interests of a ruling minority or of capital (hell that's what happened in the soviet union to an extent).

But it also helps destroys the illusion of bourgeois democracy since public workers have no choice but go up against the state as the state is now their boss, we seen this in Iran where due to the high level nationalized industry all significant labor struggles quickly escalates into large scale movements against the Iranian state itself rather then simply a struggle at the workplace.

[YKTMX]

At a very abstract level, the question for Marxist is not what "legal" form property takes (i.e. is it owned by individual, corporations or the State), but what social group in a society has effective control over production. In non-socialist social systems, the working class and those who work the land do not have effective control over either their productive activities or the products that those productive activities produce.

This condition, the alienation of the working class from the process of production and their subordination to other social groups in the field of consumption, persisted just as strongly in "actually existing socialism" as it does in bourgeois societies. In one society, the capitalists (and, in some sections, the bourgeois state) had control over production. In Stalinist countries and Maoist China, state officials, party bureaucrats and their like subjected the working class to exploitation. In neither situation did the people who produce wealth have control over how that wealth was produced and how it was distributed. So neither of these circumstances was socialist in any sense whatsoever.

In this sense, we are not in favour of the state ownership of capital to the extent that we reject the concept of capital as such - reflecting, as it does, an ultimately exploitative social relation between the producer and ownership classes.

Having said that, the question of the "nationalisation" of industry is posed very sharply today, and not in the abstract sense I have dealt with it above.

If we look at events in Latin America (with all its contradiction) in the last few months, we've seen quite clearly that the demand for state ownership (particularly of natural resources) emanates from the working class (and the oppressed more generally) precisely because state ownership is seen as representing a rejection of the (il)logic of neoliberal globalization. In a situation like that, we must support calls for "nationalisation" precisely because it is not only seen as a rejection of bourgeois economic structures, but because it is, in fact, an attack on the social power of the bourgeoisie. Of course, at all points in processes like the ones we've seen in Latin America, it's our job to pose the question not of "state ownership" as such, but of workers' control.

How we get to the position where such a demand is not only plausible but has the possibility of becoming effective is through struggle and active engagement. Therefore, socialists were quite right to support nationalisations in Venezuela and Bolivia, whilst arguing that these moves were not sufficient conditions for socialism -which, at least in one case, is apparently being "built".

[ckaihatsu]

Hope I'm not letting the steam escape here, but *all* calls for reformist demands are merely propaganda, by the revolutionary yardstick.

*No* reformist measure -- even a nationalization of the banks -- can be *relied* on as a practical political measure, because it's ultimately leaving the management of assets (and labor) in the hands of the (bureaucratic) bourgeoisie, *not* in the hands of the workers.





State capitalism will always gravitate towards regular capitalism as the ones in power has a material interest in restructuring the economy in a way which gives them a greater access to the profits.





By John Chan
22 August 2009

> An unnamed worker who had been working at Linzhou Steel for 39 years told the China Daily: “It’s a classic model of how state-owned assets are lost in corporate restructuring efforts in China. All 40 years of Linzhou Steel’s assets are now in the hands of a single person.”

> Linzhou Steel’s assets, including subsidiaries, had a book value of 831 million yuan (about $121 million). However, the Puyang City state assets supervision and administration commission valued the company, which produced 400,000 tonnes of pig iron a year, at just 331 million yuan ($48.4 million). Even more absurdly, the commission valued the firm’s cement facility (with annual capacity of 100,000 tonnes) at just 17 yuan or $2.50! Despite this vast undervaluation, the enterprise was sold for $10 million less than the commission’s figure.

> Workers were also outraged when their board chairman, Liu Junshen, a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official, reportedly declared at a management meeting that the more the firm was in the red, the better it would be for selling it. According the veteran worker who spoke to the China Daily, the management “deliberately screwed up” the factory in order to justify privatisation.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/stel-a22.shtml





Actually we'd probably see a rash of nationalizations as this crisis of negative rate of profit (and the rate of profit is currently negative as all profit currently only comes from canalizing the global means of production) deepens.


This is a crucial point -- the bank-nationalization thing went off the radar screen only a short while ago and this health care crap was attempted to show that there's still a light on at the White House. Now it's blowing up in their faces anyway.... They're running on fumes, it's true, and the next hit to the market is going to end the honeymoon for good....


Chris




--



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[eyedrop]

I'm just brainstorming a few ideas that have been tumbling around in my head lately:)


Actually we'd probably see a rash of nationalizations as this crisis of negative rate of profit (and the rate of profit is currently negative as all profit currently only comes from canalizing the global means of production) deepens. There will come a point where large imperial nation states just can't allow capitalists to maintain their profits by destroying the productive capacity of the state and the imperial interests of these large capitalist powers would give imperial states no choice but to nationalize key industries to maintain the fighting effectiveness of their armed forces to protect their asses from revolutions at home and abroad. A bunch of scandianavian banks where nationalised back in the early 90-ties because of a financial crisis, and I could certainly see something like that happening again. But they were sold out again as soon as they turned profitable again.



But it also helps destroys the illusion of bourgeois democracy since public workers have no choice but go up against the state as the state is now their boss, we seen this in Iran where due to the high level nationalized industry all significant labor struggles quickly escalates into large scale movements against the Iranian state itself rather then simply a struggle at the workplace.On the other hand I think it's also possible that the state (as an employer) is better at repressing workers than private employers, people that are privately employed generally got a higher wage than publicly employed folks. The rights and a say in how it's run I'm not really sure.

I wish I still worked as an accountant in the oil business, as I then had access to compare working conditions to publicly owned oil platforms with privately owned platforms.



At a very abstract level, the question for Marxist is not what "legal" form property takes (i.e. is it owned by individual, corporations or the State), but what social group in a society has effective control over production. In non-socialist social systems, the working class and those who work the land do not have effective control over either their productive activities or the products that those productive activities produce.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I think that Marxists, and anarchists, should care what "legal" form property takes (not that I'm saying you don't), in that it decides where the profits extracted ends up. When the state gains the profits a larger share of it ends up benefitting the public. I agree with you that in the abstract view the workers are just as alienated and exploited as before. Or in other words the employee-employer relationship is still fully intact.


Hope I'm not letting the steam escape here, but *all* calls for reformist demands are merely propaganda, by the revolutionary yardstick.

*No* reformist measure -- even a nationalization of the banks -- can be *relied* on as a practical political measure, because it's ultimately leaving the management of assets (and labor) in the hands of the (bureaucratic) bourgeoisie, *not* in the hands of the workers.

Could you please rephrase this? Are you saying that's it's impossible, or that it doesn't change any of the power-structure in the favour of the worker? Or maybe that it's doomed to at best be temporary as it leaves the control in the hands of the state who has the material interest of gaining full private control over it themself?

[Psy]

I'm just brainstorming a few ideas that have been tumbling around in my head lately:)

A bunch of scandianavian banks where nationalised back in the early 90-ties because of a financial crisis, and I could certainly see something like that happening again. But they were sold out again as soon as they turned profitable again.

Yet capitalist has passed the peak the peak in the rate of profit years ago and now entered a period of diminishing returns as there is just so much productive forces at the capitalists' command that there is no much un-tapped markets so all that is left is aging markets where devaluation of commodities drive down profits regardless of how well capitalist can exploit workers.



On the other hand I think it's also possible that the state (as an employer) is better at repressing workers than private employers, people that are privately employed generally got a higher wage than publicly employed folks. The rights and a say in how it's run I'm not really sure.

I think the public workers strikes in Ontario recently shows in bourgeois democracies can't repress workers as well as private employers, by the time bourgeois democracies can bring the full power of the state down on workers the labor movement mostly is already grown far beyond what individual capitalists handle anyway so you have a situation where bourgeois democracies with heavy nationalization having a hard time preventing worker movements from growing to the point where they challenge the state.

[eyedrop]

Yet capitalist has passed the peak the peak in the rate of profit years ago and now entered a period of diminishing returns as there is just so much productive forces at the capitalists' command that there is no much un-tapped markets so all that is left is aging markets where devaluation of commodities drive down profits regardless of how well capitalist can exploit workers. So basically the increase in supply is overtaking the increase in demand, which causes the rate of profit to decrease?

[ckaihatsu]

Could you please rephrase this? Are you saying that's it's impossible, or that it doesn't change any of the power-structure in the favour of the worker? Or maybe that it's doomed to at best be temporary as it leaves the control in the hands of the state who has the material interest of gaining full private control over it themself?


Yeah, you got it.





I think the public workers strikes in Ontario recently shows in bourgeois democracies can't repress workers as well as private employers, by the time bourgeois democracies can bring the full power of the state down on workers the labor movement mostly is already grown far beyond what individual capitalists handle anyway so you have a situation where bourgeois democracies with heavy nationalization having a hard time preventing worker movements from growing to the point where they challenge the state.


Yeah, that's why the * U.S. * state, in particular, brings in the *heavy* private guns like Blackwater, CACI, etc. to deal with places like Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, etc...(!)


: /


America’s Death Squads Inc.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/pers-a21.shtml


Obama administration uses Blackwater in drone killings

www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/blac-a22.shtml

[Hit The North]

The argument for nationalisation undercuts the bourgeois argument that means of production should exist in private hands and the surplus be disposed of privately. It strengthens the argument that means of production should be subject to democracy. In that sense, it is a progressive demand in a liberal, bourgeois society.

[eyedrop]

I think the public workers strikes in Ontario recently shows in bourgeois democracies can't repress workers as well as private employers, by the time bourgeois democracies can bring the full power of the state down on workers the labor movement mostly is already grown far beyond what individual capitalists handle anyway so you have a situation where bourgeois democracies with heavy nationalization having a hard time preventing worker movements from growing to the point where they challenge the state.
I'm not that sure that it is a rule that "bourgeois democracies can't repress workers as well as private employers". There are examples of the opposite as well.

As this study (http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2008/982-2008/982-2008-sam.pdf) shows


Lønnsutviklingen
til sjåfører var preget av at de hadde lavere lønnsvekst enn gjennomsnittlig
industriarbeiderlønn fram til det ble åpnet for anbud i 1994, men det siste tiåret har
de igjen fått en relativt bedret lønnsvekst. Det at anbud ikke har ført til ”sosial
dumping” må sees i sammenheng med kombinasjonen av høy organisasjonsgrad,
sentraliserte forhandlinger, harmonisering av nasjonale tarifforhandlinger, og
yrkestransportlovens bestemmelser om at operatører er forpliktet til å gi lønns- og
arbeidsbetingelser som minst svarer til en av de landsdekkende avtalene.

It's a study on the effects of the results of the privatisations of the public transport in Norway; The wage development of conductors have been markedly lower than the average industrial wage until it got opened for tender in 1994, but the last decade they have again gotten a relatively better wagegrowth. The fact that tender haven't "social dumping" must be seen together with the combination of a high organisatorial grade, centralised negotiations, harmonialisation of national tariffnegotiations, and ... (a law which dictates that employers are forced to give wage- and workingconditions which coincides with one of the national agreements.

It must also be mentioned that earlier public transport was usually run on a commune (the lowest state organ) level and putting public transport out for tender has increased the centralisation of it. As a bieffect of the effectivisation of the more centralised public transport it has also been easier to organize against. It may very well be the centralisation that has been the cause of labours gains, instead of the difference between public and private employer.


Edit: Crap, didn't I just destroy my own arguement at the end there?

[ckaihatsu]

So basically the increase in supply is overtaking the increase in demand, which causes the rate of profit to decrease?


The typical global markets are "aging" from vast overproduction, thereby creating plunging prices (in basic, sourced raw materials like iron oxide -- the "commodities" markets).

This sick paradox of over-abundance in the scarcity-dependent economic system of capitalism inexorably causes valuation crises, since it's difficult to know what something is worth (financially) if no one is offering any money to buy it.

And, even though the existence of plenty should make it easier for everyone to access more, the sick paradox of it is that the situation of overabundance actually causes *hoarding* since profiteers can buy low at current prices, hanging onto the stuff without circulating it in the expectation of making money in the future if and when prices rise again.

This twisted, financial logic in the lending markets means that it's *riskier* to lend out hoarded financial reserves (like to homebuyers) in current conditions, because of the prevailing low prices -- low prices signify a lack of endowed customers in the markets.

So the *overproduction* and *overabundance* actually lead to a *deflationary* *unbalancing* rather than a period of prosperity for everyone, as common sense would suggest, because the profit motive won't allow the distribution of the stuff if it can't exploit anyone on the basis of its being lent out.

These economic conditions lead the petty-bourgeois / "progressive" / libertarian types to cry out for "innovation", "new thinking", and "invention" -- but at best it only sidesteps the gargantuan question in front of all of us of "Why should we allow hoarding to continue?"

We *shouldn't* have to learn how to re-invent and build our *own* wheels from scratch -- we should *have access* to the know-how, production, and surplus that is evidently all around, but which is closed off to the bulk of humanity because of the game of "private property".

Especially considering that capitalism has only provided a handful or two of really useful end consumer goods, we in the working class can justifiably ask, "What have you done for us lately?"

Really, this latest crop-up of the recurring crisis of capitalism brings us all face-to-face with the question of what the hell the existential purpose of collaborative human society is at all, including globalization. Is there any function left in human society? Are there actually any meaningful purposes left for human collaboration, now that we have industrialism, modernism, standardization, and computerization? What tangible plan do we have for the future of humanity, exactly?





I'd like to make the point that the very notion of stored value -- from past labor -- is predicated on there being something in the future to put it into, to invest in. Without a plan for putting the capital into motion there's no need in the present for the stored value, or capital -- it may as well not even exist.

The latest financial bubbles, in virtual real estate (dotcom), wars of aggression in the Middle East, telecom, energy, housing, food, and carbon credits, are all nonproductive sectors -- it's basically the capitalists' floating craps game looking for a venue to play in.

So what really separates us from life on the farm? Civilization itself is predicated on substantial innovations, massive works projects that serve as "the next big thing" for rulers to use as hype and as a carrot to lead us along into working for them.

I would argue that the past century or so was about four top-level developments in modern civilization which the bourgeoisie used to ensnare millions and then fight over in their world wars: industrialization, modernization, standardization, and digitization. Could these developments have been enacted in less destructive ways, without the bourgeoisie? Absolutely.

So what's after digitization? Should we wait around to find out, from the likes of corporate raiders? They're obviously not the desired leadership for any kind of decent future for humanity.

[Psy]

It must also be mentioned that earlier public transport was usually run on a commune (the lowest state organ) level and putting public transport out for tender has increased the centralisation of it. As a bieffect of the effectivisation of the more centralised public transport it has also been easier to organize against. It may very well be the centralisation that has been the cause of labours gains, instead of the difference between public and private employer.


Edit: Crap, didn't I just destroy my own arguement at the end there?

Yup, and I'm saying the state is bad at oppressing workers it is just that the state is worse at preventive methods then capitalists historically states key tool to dealing with workers is the police and troops but by the time a bourgeois state can call out even the riot police the workers already would have become militant thus the state is more a reactionary solution to militancy of workers not a preemptive solution to working becoming militant in the first place. Also Detroit 1967 showed even troops have are a hard time dealing even with lightly armed and disorganized insurgences at home as the National Guard got their ass handed to them and had to be rescued by the light recon tanks of the US airborne that would have been sitting ducks if the insurgences of Detroit was organized and had even anti-tank weapons from WWII like 14.5×114 mm anti-tank rifles as the tanks were sent in without any ammo and was just a show of force and mobile cover for troops.

[Psy]

The typical global markets are "aging" from vast overproduction, thereby creating plunging prices (in basic, sourced raw materials like iron oxide -- the "commodities" markets).

This sick paradox of over-abundance in the scarcity-dependent economic system of capitalism inexorably causes valuation crises, since it's difficult to know what something is worth (financially) if no one is offering any money to buy it.

And, even though the existence of plenty should make it easier for everyone to access more, the sick paradox of it is that the situation of overabundance actually causes *hoarding* since profiteers can buy low at current prices, hanging onto the stuff without circulating it in the expectation of making money in the future if and when prices rise again.

This twisted, financial logic in the lending markets means that it's *riskier* to lend out hoarded financial reserves (like to homebuyers) in current conditions, because of the prevailing low prices -- low prices signify a lack of endowed customers in the markets.

So the *overproduction* and *overabundance* actually lead to a *deflationary* *unbalancing* rather than a period of prosperity for everyone, as common sense would suggest, because the profit motive won't allow the distribution of the stuff if it can't exploit anyone on the basis of its being lent out.

These economic conditions lead the petty-bourgeois / "progressive" / libertarian types to cry out for "innovation", "new thinking", and "invention" -- but at best it only sidesteps the gargantuan question in front of all of us of "Why should we allow hoarding to continue?"

We *shouldn't* have to learn how to re-invent and build our *own* wheels from scratch -- we should *have access* to the know-how, production, and surplus that is evidently all around, but which is closed off to the bulk of humanity because of the game of "private property".

Especially considering that capitalism has only provided a handful or two of really useful end consumer goods, we in the working class can justifiably ask, "What have you done for us lately?"

Really, this latest crop-up of the recurring crisis of capitalism brings us all face-to-face with the question of what the hell the existential purpose of collaborative human society is at all, including globalization. Is there any function left in human society? Are there actually any meaningful purposes left for human collaboration, now that we have industrialism, modernism, standardization, and computerization? What tangible plan do we have for the future of humanity, exactly?

That and capitalists have three tiers of industry: the stars (brand new untapped markets, basically it means the few capitalists in the industry pretty much have the market to themselves), cash cows (money making industries were there is more then enough profits to go around) and dogs (where competition becomes so fierce a price war breaks out and they fight over a small amount of profits) now this is part of bourgeois theory what isn't is that eventually all industries become dogs as competing capitalists in the market drives down the rate of profit and currently all markets are dogs.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The argument for nationalisation undercuts the bourgeois argument that means of production should exist in private hands and the surplus be disposed of privately. It strengthens the argument that means of production should be subject to democracy. In that sense, it is a progressive demand in a liberal, bourgeois society.

There should be reform (not "transitional") calls for national-democratization, not mere nationalization just to be run by unaccountable bureaucracies.

[Hit The North]

There should be reform (not "transitional") calls for national-democratization, not mere nationalization just to be run by unaccountable bureaucracies.

Of course.

[YKTMX]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I think that Marxists, and anarchists, should care what "legal" form property takes (not that I'm saying you don't), in that it decides where the profits extracted ends up. When the state gains the profits a larger share of it ends up benefitting the public. I agree with you that in the abstract view the workers are just as alienated and exploited as before. Or in other words the employee-employer relationship is still fully intact.


Yes, this is a fair point. Legal ownership does determine, to a large extent, where the surplus produced by productive labour "goes". Of course, if we had high levels of taxation, we could still have a large part of the surplus going to the State even if property was still privately owned. Similarly, we could have state ownership without any surplus being directed at increasing the consumption of the labouring classes, as happened in the course of the various "Plans" dreamt up by the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, at least in the 20's and 30's.

[eyedrop]

...dogs (where competition becomes so fierce a price war breaks out and they fight over a small amount of profits)...
There was an incident here a 5-6 years ago which is known as Øl-krigen (the Beer-war) where the Supermarkets started to compete with each other on the prices of beers. They ended up competing so hard that beer was sold below the production costs for about a months time before the state stepped in (probably asked by the supermarket chains) and decreed that they weren't allowed to sell beer below profitable prices.

[ckaihatsu]

What I find fascinating about the current state of humanity is that our technologies have brought us to the point of being able to feed our major senses quite well now -- video, images, and text for the eyes, audio / music for the ears, and even some tactile / kinesthetic interfaces, as with video games.

Computers are now no longer empty vessels in pricey niche markets -- they are common, user-friendly appliances that channel all sorts of freely available audio-visual content, in ready form, in mere seconds. They also allow the *creation* of the same array of media forms, distributable all over the world in an on-demand, arbitrarily many-to-many way, as a regular consumer service.

By this development of the commonly available, inexpensive A/V-networked computer appliance we have reached a democratization and even a de-commodification of *luxury* itself. In past centuries only royalty, the nobility, and the clergy would have had access to such a richness of forms, while today the average consumer has *surpassed* that ruling-class level of privilege to human cultural artifacts, by a million-fold, simply by logging onto the Internet.

The available content far outstrips *any* person's mortal ability to ever partake of it all, leaving us in a state of being that is potentially post-commercial altogether.

With what coercive stick could today's ruling class *force* us back into an interest in their commercial products, and with what enticing carrot could they *coax* us back into the ever-craving, ever-laboring consumer role?

In short, what on the horizon could *possibly* become an all-compelling motivation to fall into line at the dictates of the commercial ruling class with their politics and wars? Will their profound existential crisis motivate them to new aggressions against the rest of us, or to an all-out abandon for creating an irresistible new "killer app" for humanity, or finally to surrender?

Could their collapse in exhaustion be the peal of victory for the world's working class as our digitally liberated independence and inter-dependence allow us to for once and finally collectively turn our backs on the rulership without fear of reprisals?

Now that the promise of personal technology is now fulfilled can we finally allow the sclerotic market function to be laid to rest, for all eternity? It has riled us as the walking undead for far too long.

[Hyacinth]

What I find fascinating about the current state of humanity...
It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that that this is the current state of humanity. The sort of consumer technology that you're making reference to hasn't penetrated large portions of the globe. Likely in the not too distant future it will, but for the time being—despite the industrial capacity to equip everyone with access to such consumer goods (not to mention all the more important needs which many still lack for), the perverse things about capitalism is that it doesn't.

As to the rest of what you say, I concur. In fact, we've likely reached the point already—and if not, then soon—where we can produce abundance not only of information (which is easy), but of goods and services. While markets might have at one point been rational, insofar as we were operating under conditions of scarcity, they no longer remain so as they are not designed to deal with abundance. Case and point being information technology where the only way to maintain markets has been to attempt to impose artificial scarcity through legal and technical means.

[Comrade Akai]

No, no and no. I am strictly against all form of capital everywhere. It will only lead back to capitalism, which leads to innocent people dying and living in crappy conditions. No thanks.

[eyedrop]

Yes, this is a fair point. Legal ownership does determine, to a large extent, where the surplus produced by productive labour "goes". Of course, if we had high levels of taxation, we could still have a large part of the surplus going to the State even if property was still privately owned. Similarly, we could have state ownership without any surplus being directed at increasing the consumption of the labouring classes, as happened in the course of the various "Plans" dreamt up by the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, at least in the 20's and 30's. But is it possible to ever achieved high levels of taxation (on capital returns, not just on wages)? There is nothing that goes against the capitalists in high taxes on wages so such reforms are allowed to go trough, they even make a capitalist society run better, but higher taxes on capital returns is harder to implement.

You are spot on in that state ownership doesn't guarante that much of the surplus is given to the people. In addition the state has no more of a structural reason to allow any power to "trickle" down to the workers than a capitalist, alongside that it will gravitate towards private capitalism with the former beuracrats in a position of ownership.


No, no and no. I am strictly against all form of capital everywhere. It will only lead back to capitalism, which leads to innocent people dying and living in crappy conditions. No thanks.
I wanted to examine why leftist off all stripes always end up decrying and fighting any privatisation of state owned enterprices. I can't really say that my country (Norway) wouldn't have been worse of if all the oil industry (and all the gigantic profits) hadn't remained partly in state hands. On the other hands there are cases like the privatisation of public transport, (mentioned in one of my earlier posts in the tread), where the privatisation actually lead to better working conditions and rights for the bus workers (Caused by the centralisation and effectivisation, which made organising easier). In an afterthought I would actually have been divided on if I should actually support the privatisation or not, whereas in the oil industry there really is no question.


I'm wondering how a line of supporting letting the private market take care of all the dog markets (see Psy's post), while the state has controlled over all the star markets (idealistic though) and hopefully spends some of the profit on welfare.


I'm not really sure why the state should keep control over the non-profitable industries, when a privatisation could lead to centralisation, effectivisation, easier organising and better rights. Let's face it, the state is hardly a benovelent capitalist, as an employer it has to be forced just as much as individual capitalist does.

[Hit The North]

I'm not really sure why the state should keep control over the non-profitable industries, when a privatisation could lead to centralisation, effectivisation, easier organising and better rights. Let's face it, the state is hardly a benovelent capitalist, as an employer it has to be forced just as much as individual capitalist does.

And yet I'd suggest that state owned industries tend to have higher union membership density than privately owned industry. Also having one employer to strike against rather than a number of privately owned firms, means strike action is industry wide and therefore more generalised and more political given that the single employer is the government.

Further, the experience of privatisation in the UK has been negative for workers who have been subjected to the discipline of the market - meaning an erosion of pay, contracts, conditions, pensions and a loss of jobs.

[Aobi]

If capital is merely owned by the state - versus ownership by individuals - isn't that just capitalism? Would it make a difference if it was a "workers state?" Seems to me, that capitalism is defined by wage labor - exploitation -, and that in both cases wage labor exists, yet is distributed in a different fashion? That doesn't seem like a revolutionary change.

[Hit The North]

No one is claiming that it's a revolutionary change; nor that state owned capital is qualitatively different from capitalism.

[eyedrop]

And yet I'd suggest that state owned industries tend to have higher union membership density than privately owned industry. Also having one employer to strike against rather than a number of privately owned firms, means strike action is industry wide and therefore more generalised and more political given that the single employer is the government.

Further, the experience of privatisation in the UK has been negative for workers who have been subjected to the discipline of the market - meaning an erosion of pay, contracts, conditions, pensions and a loss of jobs.

Thanks for bringing me down:) The bus privatisation was an exception where privatisation lead to fewer employers, in contrast to before where each commune (lowest governmental organ) was an employer of it's own.

In the majority of cases the effects are bad. It was rather the exception that proves the rule (Norwegian proverb).

[bosgek]

Perhaps it depends on what the state does with their "capital" or rather means of production. Just imagine a system where there is no over- or underproduction and hardly any stocks (it's called Kanban) and a worker run factory / company would actually work autonomously (including supplier / customer relationships) and do it's maintenance correctly, that's a big if as I think it takes about 15 - 20 years for a factory to transform that way (non industry 10 - 15 years as they are less complex).

A state (owner) then doesn't have to concern themselves with how things are done, why things are done or even what things are done (only generally). They could do with basic KPI's (key performance indicators) such as maintenance costs, productivity and customer satisfaction, simply checking if set goals are realistic and check with their own goals. And even when the KPI's are bad, the state only has to say they must improve (not how).

I've seen many posts that assume state ownership implies that the state has to get involved in how people do their jobs. I think it only needs to look at the big picture. Trust the workers, they can be trained to run a factory.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Look at China and tell me that State Capitalism is a good thing.

Sweatshops, child labour, pollution out the ass, totalitariansm, authoritarianism.

[eyedrop]

Perhaps it depends on what the state does with their "capital" or rather means of production. Just imagine a system where there is no over- or underproduction and hardly any stocks (it's called Kanban) and a worker run factory / company would actually work autonomously (including supplier / customer relationships) and do it's maintenance correctly, that's a big if as I think it takes about 15 - 20 years for a factory to transform that way (non industry 10 - 15 years as they are less complex). And how would the shift to a worker controlled factory start? When it happens in real life it happens quite fast (Look at Argentina), I don't see how it can happen over a long time. Any examples?


A state (owner) then doesn't have to concern themselves with how things are done, why things are done or even what things are done (only generally). They could do with basic KPI's (key performance indicators) such as maintenance costs, productivity and customer satisfaction, simply checking if set goals are realistic and check with their own goals. And even when the KPI's are bad, the state only has to say they must improve (not how). Good luck finding an owner who doesn't want to control it. If you have the chance everyone will want to control it, especially as they think they can run it more effecient than others. I don't see how it could ever be in an owners interest to give the control away.


I've seen many posts that assume state ownership implies that the state has to get involved in how people do their jobs. I think it only needs to look at the big picture. Trust the workers, they can be trained to run a factory.

Aren't the involvement of the owner implied in ownership?

2. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ownership)ownership - the act of having and controlling property (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ownership)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

All types of capitalism sucks, but some versions sucks less. You can't really disagree that the russian working class suffered enormously in the wake of the sovjet collapse.

And I don't, but that doesn't mean that a soviet-like system should be tolerated simply because its better than developing privatized capitalism.