Privatisation/Nationalisation [Archive]

farleft

10th October 2009, 01:12

Hi all,

The following is not written by me but I would like advice for a good reply:

"Do you really want to go back to nationalised industries? Even though a large minority may have opposed this happening in the first place, there were reasons. Privatisation should bring competition, improved customer services and lower charges; the reason this has so spectacularly failed in many cases is down to the normally ridiculous and complex regulations imposed by the government.

I don't 100% agree with a 'light-touch' regulation (we've all seen how well that worked with the finance sector) but previously having worked a couple of years in the electricity industry I can honestly say a lot (not all, much is also down to poor training - especially in customer services - and general management incompetence) are due to the legal restrictions put in place. I have heard people on TV saying how they wished they could change utility suppliers as easily as they do with car insurance, but unless we tackle the underlying cause of this - the regulations - then it'll never happen.

A nationalised public transport infrastructure would bring us no extra benefits; with nationalisation you lose all choice, we see this now with Royal Mail; they strike, and we suffer. And any proposition that this should be free is personally a bit distasteful. This country owes £175bn, it will take decades to pay it off (and we haven't even finished paying America for helping us out in WW1 & WW2) how can you propose adding more to that debt? And don't forget the millions the government would lose in corporation tax, VAT, etc. that would affect other front-line services like the NHS and the education system. I think I'd rather have great schools for our kids than free transport!"

10th October 2009, 01:33

RedSonRising

10th October 2009, 01:36

If there is an community electoral process implemented in local transportation industry, then the leadership would be accountable to improve conditions and constantly improve for the sake of their constituents, the community citizens, and the workplace would be standard self-management. Higher national regulations could play a role as well.

If it were a business run cooperative-style with the employees independently in charge, then it would be in their interest (much like a capitalists) to appeal to consumers through better quality. If there are several of these, competition plays a role, and again national regulation would allow for the people to have the final say.

No efficiency is lost; working citizens receive their (higher) wages according to their labor/service, money is generated for the state/community, the transportation system's capacity is not held back by the private interest of the capitalist, and there is choice in a mono-structural electoral system OR a regulated set up of competitive cooperatives (and maybe more I haven't thought of).

A more accessible transportation system would benefit the entire economy in mobilizing working citizens quicker and more easily.

farleft

10th October 2009, 01:37

Sorry maybe I should have put this in a it of perspective...

This is part of a coversation on a newish political parties forum so it's really to work out policy, first things first, are we for or against and this person is clearly against nationalisation.

Dimentio

10th October 2009, 01:41

It is a false dichotomy.

It is not about the nominal ownership of the resources, but about in who's interests they are managed and how they are managed.

farleft

10th October 2009, 01:42

Again this is from the perspective of modern day capitalist britain.

This is with no changing of society mearly re-nationalising buses and trains.

Dimentio

10th October 2009, 01:48

Why not let the communities govern them through cooperatives?

10th October 2009, 01:50

Again this is from the perspective of modern day capitalist britain.

This is with no changing of society mearly re-nationalising buses and trains.

The current state of the transport network here makes renationalisation almost completely impossible anyway, no government is going to want to dismantle the tangled web of private companies providing all these different bits and pieces, not that any bourgeois party wants it renationalised, other than maybe RESPECT and some left libdems.

farleft

10th October 2009, 01:51

The party isnt one that would have much interest in shifting power/control/etc from central government to local councils/communities.

Could we just stick to the pretty straight forward question? lol

farleft

10th October 2009, 01:55

Dimentio

10th October 2009, 02:23

Is it the Pirate Party you are talking about?

farleft

10th October 2009, 02:29

Is it the Pirate Party you are talking about?

Yes

Psy

10th October 2009, 03:16

The current state of the transport network here makes renationalisation almost completely impossible anyway, no government is going to want to dismantle the tangled web of private companies providing all these different bits and pieces, not that any bourgeois party wants it renationalised, other than maybe RESPECT and some left libdems.

That ignores the history of nationalism of the 19th century, where most industrialized nations nationalized tangled web of private: power, phone and transport companies due them going bankrupt and threatening the loss of the means for imperialist nations to wage war. Do you think for a second the Pentagon would allow its means to wage war to be comprised because its arms manufactured go bankrupt, no the Pentagon would demand Washington nationalize the arms manufactures just like how the Pentagon pressured the building of expressways by the federal government after WWII to make it easier to mobilize ground troops around mainland USA.

So yhea if the crisis runs deep enough to challenge the industry base of imperialist powers you'd see nationalization of production that militarizes see are of strategic importance.

RadioRaheem84

10th October 2009, 03:21

You want a good answer:

Read Ha Joon Chang's brilliant book Bad Samaritans. In it there are two chapters about public corporations. Chang smashes the idea that everything private is run better and more efficiently than the public. Basically the whole book deals with the myths of globalization and the arguments against protectionism.

10th October 2009, 03:40

That ignores the history of nationalism of the 19th century, where most industrialized nations nationalized tangled web of private: power, phone and transport companies due them going bankrupt and threatening the loss of the means for imperialist nations to wage war. Do you think for a second the Pentagon would allow its means to wage war to be comprised because its arms manufactured go bankrupt, no the Pentagon would demand Washington nationalize the arms manufactures just like how the Pentagon pressured the building of expressways by the federal government after WWII to make it easier to mobilize ground troops around mainland USA.

So yhea if the crisis runs deep enough to challenge the industry base of imperialist powers you'd see nationalization of production that militarizes see are of strategic importance.

I don't think the transport system (trains, buses) can hold many troops myself, I wasn't referring to roads/highways or that kind of thing.

Crux

10th October 2009, 03:52

Yes
Oh boy.

Psy

10th October 2009, 05:57

I don't think the transport system (trains, buses) can hold many troops myself, I wasn't referring to roads/highways or that kind of thing.
You do know in the 19th and early 20th century trains was the primary method to deploy ground forces which is why in WWII Italy and Germany militarized their rail networks. Also the US rail system is still key to the US military, when US rail workers strike military supplies don't make it to naval ports thus don't get shipped over seas. Sure it is possible to truck supplies to ports but its is greatly inefficient due to the weight of the M1 Abrams, 60 metric tons of the M1 Abrams is nothing for a freight trains (a Dash-9 engine weighs in a just shy of 200 metric tons) while most road bridges can't support that and you have to factor the weight of the trailer carrying the M1 Abrams and truck pulling it.

Since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan train spotters have taken interests in spotting military runs like this CSX W880 Military Train July 22 2004 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkbQecgn4Hc) which show how much military equipment can be moved by a railway.

robbo203

10th October 2009, 09:38

farleft

10th October 2009, 13:42

Thanks but I have now just replied with...

nelsonsa wrote:Do you really want to go back to nationalised industries? Even though a large minority may have opposed this happening in the first place, there were reasons. Privatisation should bring competition, improved customer services and lower charges; the reason this has so spectacularly failed in many cases is down to the normally ridiculous and complex regulations imposed by the government.

I don't really feel it's worthwhile discussing what "should" happen under certain situations but rather look at what actually happens/happened.
If I get a train from Nottingham to London there is just 1 train, by 1 company, the same as it was when nationalised and the same as it would be if it was re-nationalised again.
The main reason I am not happy wth privatised industries (not just transport) is for the what seems like annual fare increase way above the rate of inflation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8012943.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1089436.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/may/19/railcard-fares-rise
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/record-rail-fare-rises-punishing-passengers-1220039.html

nelsonsa wrote:I don't 100% agree with a 'light-touch' regulation (we've all seen how well that worked with the finance sector) but previously having worked a couple of years in the electricity industry I can honestly say a lot (not all, much is also down to poor training - especially in customer services - and general management incompetence) are due to the legal restrictions put in place. I have heard people on TV saying how they wished they could change utility suppliers as easily as they do with car insurance, but unless we tackle the underlying cause of this - the regulations - then it'll never happen.

Your choice again depends on what area you live in, same applies to broadband etc. Although we are switching the topic to utilities here (which should also be nationalised) the point is very much the same, unreasonable price increases which in particular hit the vulnerable. I for one dont see my salary going up 26% in the next 5 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7552564.stm
http://www.24dash.com/news/Bill_Payments/2009-10-09-Ofgem-warns-of-steep-rises-in-gas-and-electricity-bills
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7533389.stm

nelsonsa wrote:A nationalised public transport infrastructure would bring us no extra benefits; with nationalisation you lose all choice, we see this now with Royal Mail; they strike, and we suffer. And any proposition that this should be free is personally a bit distasteful. This country owes £175bn, it will take decades to pay it off (and we haven't even finished paying America for helping us out in WW1 & WW2) how can you propose adding more to that debt? And don't forget the millions the government would lose in corporation tax, VAT, etc. that would affect other front-line services like the NHS and the education system. I think I'd rather have great schools for our kids than free transport!

I dont really think choice is an issue, I dont care who takes me from Nottingham to London, I just want to get there and I want it to cost as little a possible. Bringing transport back under public ownership doesnt imply more debt, it could make a small profit or break-even, as long as there are no top execs getting fat bonuses and saleries while still charging the earth to customers.
Maybe I am just speaking for myself but there is a fair bit of interest being raised by various facebook groups and real world organisations.

Maybe you are in favour of privatising eduction? Your kids and you would have choice and the divide between those with money and those without will grow ever larger! We could do the same to the NHS too, if only we lived in such a society...

Psy

10th October 2009, 17:40

Nationalisation or privatisation - its still capitalism! This is not an issue which communist revolutionaries should get involved in. The capitalists may sometimes favour nationalisation (Engels commented wryly that if nationalisation had anything to do with socialism that would make Bismarck a proponent of socialism) because sometimes (as some of the above posts make clear) it is works out in their interests as a whole even if it may be at odds with the interests of individual capitalists. Workers should not get involved in, or be distracted by, such inter-capitalist squabbles but should keep their eye on the ball - to defend their own interests in the most militant fashion possible whether against the state or some private corporation. Beyond that they should be looking to get rid of capitalism in all its guises including state capitalism

Nationalized industries are more sensitive to workers struggle, for example if General Motors was nationalized prior to the current crisis it would have been much harder for Washington to layoff workers, GM workers would have been much closer to other public workers and a strike in GM could more easily spread to postal workers, teachers, garbage collectors, transit workers, ect since they would then also have grievances with the same employer as the GM workers (the US state) rather then see GM capitalists as having nothing to do with them as they are not employed by them thus nationalized industries allow for strikes to spread much faster and farther.

cyu

10th October 2009, 19:00

Excerpt from http://everything2.com/user/seeya/writeups/privatization

The primary goal of privatization is to increase efficiency. The reasoning is that businesses that have monopoly control of a market have little reason to improve their service. The secondary goal of privatization is to provide the government with money for fiscal spending.

Unfortunately, the goal is often forgotten and only the method is remembered. There is currently a lawsuit instigated by UPS in an attempt to dismantle the Canadian Postal Service - an attempt to use the concept of privatization to reduce competition and gain monopoly power.

The usual method of privatization is to sell off the business to various financiers. The problem with this kind of privatization is that although new competition may be created, the control over these businesses has been lost. While representative governments have as their charter to treat their employees fairly, the handing over of control to individual capitalists (rather than the employees) results in a move toward a less representative society.

In addition, these businesses are often sold to foreign investors in return for foreign exchange. This short-term gain for the government results in long-term loss by the nation, as profits from their businesses are taken out of the country by the financiers.

robbo203

10th October 2009, 19:33

Nationalized industries are more sensitive to workers struggle, for example if General Motors was nationalized prior to the current crisis it would have been much harder for Washington to layoff workers, GM workers would have been much closer to other public workers and a strike in GM could more easily spread to postal workers, teachers, garbage collectors, transit workers, ect since they would then also have grievances with the same employer as the GM workers (the US state) rather then see GM capitalists as having nothing to do with them as they are not employed by them thus nationalized industries allow for strikes to spread much faster and farther.

I dont think this necessarily follows. The state is not to averse to making substantial layoffs- more so these days than in the past. In the USA there have been substantial job losses in central and local governments alone in the current recession - some 110,000. In the UK one has only to recall the famous miners strike of 1984 prompted by the threat of pit closures in the nationalised coal industry. Nor does it follow that a strike in GM would spread more easily to other groups of workers simply by virtue of the fact that they nominally share the same employer in the the form of the capitalist state. This presupposes a degree of worker militancy which could just apply in the case of privatised industries

But all this is by the by. The main point is that nationalisation is simply a capitalist arrangement. To push for nationalisation because of its alleged advantages over privatisation from the workers point of view is in effect to reinforce capitalism

Psy

10th October 2009, 20:21

I dont think this necessarily follows. The state is not to averse to making substantial layoffs- more so these days than in the past. In the USA there have been substantial job losses in central and local governments alone in the current recession - some 110,000.

That has resulted in the strikes in the public sectors, there has actually been much more strikes in the public sector in the US then in the private.

In the UK one has only to recall the famous miners strike of 1984 prompted by the threat of pit closures in the nationalised coal industry.

That resulted in a strike that almost brought down the Thatcher government.

Nor does it follow that a strike in GM would spread more easily to other groups of workers simply by virtue of the fact that they nominally share the same employer in the the form of the capitalist state. This presupposes a degree of worker militancy which could just apply in the case of privatised industries

Nationalized workers are more unionized and tend to be more militant then workers in the private sector. This comes down to perspective, when nationalized industries try to break unions workers tend to see it as state oppression and more willing to use violence against the state (the logic being if the state is using violence against them then why should workers be lawful) while private workers will be more mindful of the law as they still see the state as being neutral far more then workers in nationalized industries.

But all this is by the by. The main point is that nationalisation is simply a capitalist arrangement. To push for nationalisation because of its alleged advantages over privatisation from the workers point of view is in effect to reinforce capitalism

The point is consternating focus on the state, if you want to crush capitalism you first have to crush the capitalist state, without the capitalists state the individual capitalists would no longer have any protection, they would no longer be able to call on the police or the army to break up strikes thus be helpless against revolutionary workers.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

10th October 2009, 22:19

Psy

10th October 2009, 22:45

The militancy of workers in nationalised enterprises, and the ability of their struggles to radicalise through direct confrontation with the state, is a reality. However, this is not a basis to justify (campaigns for) the nationalisation of particular enterprises and industries, campaigns which do not in any way fundamentally challenge capitalism and play the role of a mystification to derail the struggles of the working class (Ironically your comments about workers in privite enterprises fit in here; witness the fantastic campaigns by the relevant unions derailing the struggles of the workers into struggles for nationalisation of the enterprise).

I've seen the deterioration that privation caused, privatization make operating costs a issue when before it, workers tend to be far more militant when they see themselves as preforming a public service and not just workers selling their labor for wages. I worked in industry that was privatized, when it was a nationalized the workers never backed down when managed cried about operating costs yet when it was privatized that argument actually worked, management could spook workers by saying if they don't take pay cuts they would go bankrupt and everyone would lose their job.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

11th October 2009, 10:16

privatization make operating costs a issue when before it

That's not true at all. Operating costs are just as much of an issue for state enterprises (which are no less capitalist in nature than their private counterparts and are bound to the same laws). Recently in Australia we have seen desperate cost cutting moves by the state governments in the areas of health and public transport.

workers tend to be far more militant when they see themselves as preforming a public service and not just workers selling their labor for wages.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The ideological mystification that work in state enterprises carries with it (e.g. working for the 'good of society', performing a 'public service', fulfilling 'civic duty', etc.) is a damper of militancy and consciousness, not a facilitator.

I worked in industry that was privatized, when it was a nationalized the workers never backed down when managed cried about operating costs yet when it was privatized that argument actually worked, management could spook workers by saying if they don't take pay cuts they would go bankrupt and everyone would lose their job.

This is a legitimate and correct point. However, again, I don't think this is actually a justification for slogans and campaigns of nationalisation which act as a diversion from the class struggle and an ideological mystification.

Psy

11th October 2009, 15:54

That's not true at all. Operating costs are just as much of an issue for state enterprises (which are no less capitalist in nature than their private counterparts and are bound to the same laws). Recently in Australia we have seen desperate cost cutting moves by the state governments in the areas of health and public transport.

While it still plays part it is not as great since workers are aware the state can't go under and have no right to a profit, thus on average more resistance from employees of the state over cuts then from employees of private capitalists.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The ideological mystification that work in state enterprises carries with it (e.g. working for the 'good of society', performing a 'public service', fulfilling 'civic duty', etc.) is a damper of militancy and consciousness, not a facilitator.

If that was true we wouldn't see nearly as many garbage,transit and teachers strikes, strikes in the public sector is far more frequent then in the private sector.

This is a legitimate and correct point. However, again, I don't think this is actually a justification for slogans and campaigns of nationalisation which act as a diversion from the class struggle and an ideological mystification.

It is not really diversion, it starts getting workers thinking outside the profit motive, it would only be a diversion if there is a revolutionary situation and workers are ready to go farther just like striking for better working conditions are not a diversion outside a revolutionary situation.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

11th October 2009, 22:44

If that was true we wouldn't see nearly as many garbage,transit and teachers strikes, strikes in the public sector is far more frequent then in the private sector.

There are other factors involved in the generation of militancy and consciousness amongst state employees other than the strength of ruling class ideology. I think you are forgetting this. Either way, I think this is a very much secondary concern because this is not an argument in my opinion to defend movements and slogans in support of nationalisation.

It is not really diversion, it starts getting workers thinking outside the profit motive, it would only be a diversion if there is a revolutionary situation and workers are ready to go farther just like striking for better working conditions are not a diversion outside a revolutionary situation.

But again, state enterprises are not 'outside the profit motive'. If you argue it can 'get workers thinking', sure, but you can just as easily argue it promotes false hope in the state and bourgeois legality. Also, the logic you seem to be using here is 'things are bad (ie. not revolutionary), so it's not like it can get worse (so nationalisation can't cause any harm right now)'. I don't think this logic is correct.

Also, I don't think discussing this matter in the abstract way we are is very helpful.

More Fire for the People

11th October 2009, 22:59

Nationalization, and the fight against privatization, are gains for a working class subject to the tyranny of capital. Yet they do not abolish capital and consequently are only means, not ends, to the abolition of working class wage-slavery.

11th October 2009, 23:02

You do know in the 19th and early 20th century trains was the primary method to deploy ground forces which is why in WWII Italy and Germany militarized their rail networks. Also the US rail system is still key to the US military, when US rail workers strike military supplies don't make it to naval ports thus don't get shipped over seas. Sure it is possible to truck supplies to ports but its is greatly inefficient due to the weight of the M1 Abrams, 60 metric tons of the M1 Abrams is nothing for a freight trains (a Dash-9 engine weighs in a just shy of 200 metric tons) while most road bridges can't support that and you have to factor the weight of the trailer carrying the M1 Abrams and truck pulling it.

Since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan train spotters have taken interests in spotting military runs like this CSX W880 Military Train July 22 2004 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkbQecgn4Hc) which show how much military equipment can be moved by a railway.

This is all well and good tbh, it has no relation to the UK railway system. It was nationalised in 1948 and under EU directive 91/440 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31991L0440&model=guichett) and a helpful conservative government, was privatised in 1993 more archaically than pre-nationalisation. Freight trains can run over the rail network as it's is owned by a central private company called Railtrack (now Network Rail I believe). I'm unfamiliar with the AMTRAK system over there, but I'm pretty sure it's been nationalised for a very long time and still is?

Whichever way and maybe you consider it ignorant of history, the UK rail network is definitely not going to be nationalised any time soon. I think you can count on banks being nationalised however.

Also, your points about nationalisation increasing workers' struggle are a bit strange going on the level of militancy expressed over here by RMT-unionised workers, specifically brought about by privatisation (you can go ahead and read about the latest tube strike and the disruption it's causing if you want). ;)

Another good example is the latest postal strike; CWU are fighting against the cuts made thanks to privatisation. It's a big strike is all I can say..

NiccolÃ² Rossi

11th October 2009, 23:25

Nationalization, and the fight against privatization, are gains for a working class subject to the tyranny of capital.

How?

More Fire for the People

12th October 2009, 00:02

12th October 2009, 00:19

Nationalized electricity, water, etc. tend to be at lower rates than privatized electricity, water, etc. for one. Secondly, these organizations are put under more scrutiny to obey laws that are designed to prevent financial or productive crises. Thirdly, the efficacy of nationalized industries in both providing sustainable and public-oriented production put holes in the logic of neoliberalism.

While the earlier observations about nationalisation in some ways making conditions better for workers stand true, you must remember there are other factors involved. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7250252.stm contains some good examples.

Most nationalisation is really just bailing out of a failing sector of the economy, it's not really going to create loads and loads more jobs or even much innovation. While perhaps some of it is helpful to workers, it's too loose and unpredictable to really advocate anyway. I can't think of many governments in the world that promote nationalisation as it is now.

More Fire for the People

12th October 2009, 00:21

Nationalization breaks up a company's private bureaucracy and places it under a public one. Any system that keeps the private bureaucracy in tact is not a nationalization.

Die Neue Zeit

12th October 2009, 00:44

Coggeh

12th October 2009, 00:54

How?
Bourgeois nationalisation is a gain for workers in the sense that publicly owned companies tend to operate more to provide a service and not a profit and also jobs tend to be of a higher quality (better pay and conditions) under public ownership rather than private .

Its the same as saying public transport/education/health is better for workers than private transport/health/education. They should be fought for by all activists as a transitional demand to socialist nationalisation which would be the democratisation of public services and brought into actual communal ownership .

Psy

12th October 2009, 02:36

This is all well and good tbh, it has no relation to the UK railway system. It was nationalised in 1948 and under EU directive 91/440 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi%21celexapi%21prod%21CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31991L0440&model=guichett) and a helpful conservative government, was privatised in 1993 more archaically than pre-nationalisation. Freight trains can run over the rail network as it's is owned by a central private company called Railtrack (now Network Rail I believe). I'm unfamiliar with the AMTRAK system over there, but I'm pretty sure it's been nationalised for a very long time and still is?

Whichever way and maybe you consider it ignorant of history, the UK rail network is definitely not going to be nationalised any time soon. I think you can count on banks being nationalised however.

Take the example of Canadian National Railway that was the nationalization of many bankrupt Canadian railways and later bankrupt American railways in the US Midwest to protect Canadian industry by ensuring Canadian industries could transport materials and goods to the USA without having to worry about the railway going bankrupt.

If Network Rail in the UK went bankrupt I could see the UK government nationalizing just to ensure the UK economy doesn't grind to a halt, as the railway going bankrupt would have the same effect as a nation wide general strike, for example coal power plants can't operate without coal any more then they can operate without workers. I just don't see the UK ruling class accepting blackouts to honor the ideal of 'free-markets'.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th October 2009, 05:23

Nationalized electricity, water, etc. tend to be at lower rates than privatized electricity, water, etc. for one.

There is not necessarily any net gain of nationalisation for the working class. The money still has to come from somewhere, and in the case of state enterprises this is in the form of tax revenue. Where tax revenue isn't increased, funds must be spread more thinly. Also, the 'savings' of nationalisation must be weighed against the costs for workers. One of the arguments often made by social democrats and leftists is the increased efficiency of 'planning' (ie. nationalisation). The real meaning of these statement hits home when we read the very frank words of Thorez, General Secretary of the French Communist Party, and then vice president in the De Gaulle government, thrown at the working class of France's nationalised industrie, especially "If miners have to die at their post, their wives will replace them", "Roll up your sleeves for national reconstruction!" or "strikes are the weapon of the trusts"

Secondly, these organizations are put under more scrutiny to obey laws that are designed to prevent financial or productive crises.

Laws don't prevent financial and productive crises. These are inherent in the laws of capitalism from which state enterprises do not escape. This is no different to the line touted by the ruling class that the crisis is a product of 'excesses', 'recklessness' or the infamous 'greedy bankers', used to justify increased state power in economic affairs and the implementation of austerity measures.

[/quote=MFftP]Thirdly, the efficacy of nationalized industries in both providing sustainable and public-oriented production put holes in the logic of neoliberalism.[/QUOTE]

So?

Nationalization breaks up a company's private bureaucracy and places it under a public one. Any system that keeps the private bureaucracy in tact is not a nationalization.

Show me a nationalisation then. What is a 'public bureaucracy'? Unlike in liberal fantasty, the bourgeois state is not a neutral social arbiter held accountable by 'the public'.

More Fire for the People

12th October 2009, 05:33

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th October 2009, 05:38

Bourgeois nationalisation is a gain for workers in the sense that publicly owned companies tend to operate more to provide a service and not a profit and also jobs tend to be of a higher quality (better pay and conditions) under public ownership rather than private.

Again this notion about the provision of 'services' (as opposed to the production of commodities). Nationalised enterprises are no different from private enterprises. They are capitalist in nature, and not in any way 'post-capitalist'. They produce commodities, they exploit wage-labour, they operate according to the laws of capitalism internationally.

Also, on the matter of working standards in nationalised enterprises, as heinously demonstrated by Thorez, this is not at all necessarily the case (if not an exception to the rule). More importantly though, it is wrong to equate better working conditions in nationalised enterprises with nationalisation itself. Where this does exist, a much more sensible (though again, not universal) explanation would be the increased militancy of these workers and their ability to extract concessions from the state through struggle. Certainly not a reason to raise the abstract slogan for nationalisation.

They should be fought for by all activists as a transitional demand to socialist nationalisation which would be the democratisation of public services and brought into actual communal ownership .

There is nothing 'transitional' about the demand for nationalisation. History has proven the bourgeoisie is perfectly able (where it is not actively seeking) to concede this demand. This demand confirms the status of those who call for it as being the political left-wing of capital.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th October 2009, 06:04

I'm somewhere between :rolleyes: and :lol:. I use to think left-communists deserved a good amount of time in a labor camp. Now I realize they belong in the zoo. If you need someone to tell you the difference from a state-owned business and a private-owned business from the working class perspective, there's only three reasons: you've only ever dealt with state-owned businesses, you've only dealt with privately-owned businesses, or you're not working class.

I don't see an argument here, so I will assume you don't have one.

For the sake of openess, I'll admit that I've only ever been employed in the private sector, but this does not discredit my points. There are others on this board who are employed by the state (and who have worked in private businesses before) who will agree with the position I'm taking here. But again, this doesn't have anything to do with the validity of my argument.

On a final note, I think it's fucking appalling that you can joke about left communists being put in forced labour camps. Left communist militants were exiled, left communist militants were murdered (Marc Chirik, one of the founders of the ICC, had his life fortunately spared from summary execution by Stalinist agents; Garvil Myasnikov fled to Iran in 1928 and to France in 1930 where he continued his life as a metal worker until 1945 when he was captured and returned to Russia by Stalinist agents and executed - Just to take two examples), left communist militants where sentenced to the Gulags (see: 'Italian Communists Inside Stalin's Gulags (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2008-03-01/italian-communists-inside-stalin%E2%80%99s-gulags)', IBRP). Joking about this shit, defending it and advocating it upon others (including myself!) is beyond disgusting.

robbo203

12th October 2009, 06:13

Nationalized workers are more unionized and tend to be more militant then workers in the private sector. This comes down to perspective, when nationalized industries try to break unions workers tend to see it as state oppression and more willing to use violence against the state (the logic being if the state is using violence against them then why should workers be lawful) while private workers will be more mindful of the law as they still see the state as being neutral far more then workers in nationalized industries..

Even if your claim was empirically correct - and this might well be the case - this thread is about nationalisation and whether there is any merit at all in workers supporting nationalisation as against privatisation. I say no because for workers to do so is a to be coopted into supporting one form of capitalism vis-a-vis another i.e. state capitalism. It is also to buy into the whole ideology that goes with nationalisation such as the pernicious myth that publicly owned enterprises or services somehow "belong to the people". You do not seem to dispute the claim that the state is a repressive instrument that operates in the interest oif the capitalist class as a whole. To support nationalisation is actually to endorse and give sustenance to this instrument. I say workers should follow a policy of strict abstentionism or neutrality on the question of privatisation versus nationalisation which in the end is a capitalist issue not a working class issue. They should militantly pursue their class interests whether in the private sector or the state sector and not seek to ally themselves with sections of the capitalist class in wanting to expand the latter

The point is consternating focus on the state, if you want to crush capitalism you first have to crush the capitalist state, without the capitalists state the individual capitalists would no longer have any protection, they would no longer be able to call on the police or the army to break up strikes thus be helpless against revolutionary workers.

Maybe so but it hardly aids "crushing the capitalist state" by advocating the extension of ownership by this self same capitalist state into areas of industry currently under private ownership does it now?

Die Neue Zeit

12th October 2009, 06:14

What about the nationalization of land?

12th October 2009, 07:43

Take the example of Canadian National Railway that was the nationalization of many bankrupt Canadian railways and later bankrupt American railways in the US Midwest to protect Canadian industry by ensuring Canadian industries could transport materials and goods to the USA without having to worry about the railway going bankrupt.

Sure, in some cases the government steps in before it's too late, but I think it's fair to say that that isn't always the case, it doesn't operate in such a predictable way like that.

If Network Rail in the UK went bankrupt I could see the UK government nationalizing just to ensure the UK economy doesn't grind to a halt

;)

The previous group that was network rail did go bankrupt http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2608527.stm in 2002, trust me on this -- Cappies do not necessarily learn from their mistakes. Give this a gander too http://www.nce.co.uk/news/business/without-change-we-will-fail-network-rails-coucher-tells-suppliers/5205218.article.

I'm sure it could go bankrupt before the gov could even get its act together to nationalise it. I think you're overestimating the power of the governments to regulate every section of their economies.

Is it so strange that the rail companies face their main threat from the unions in the UK? The RMT is clearly the biggest threat to them not nationalisation.

as the railway going bankrupt would have the same effect as a nation wide general strike, for example coal power plants can't operate without coal any more then they can operate without workers. I just don't see the UK ruling class accepting blackouts to honor the ideal of 'free-markets'.

Haha, you don't understand the railways here. :p One often wonders if an entire trains/tubes strike would have the same effect (runing railway replacement bus services as always) as if one signalman didn't turn up, or there was a tiny bit of rain (god knows what would happen if both occurred).

Psy

12th October 2009, 14:59

Even if your claim was empirically correct - and this might well be the case - this thread is about nationalisation and whether there is any merit at all in workers supporting nationalisation as against privatisation. I say no because for workers to do so is a to be coopted into supporting one form of capitalism vis-a-vis another i.e. state capitalism. It is also to buy into the whole ideology that goes with nationalisation such as the pernicious myth that publicly owned enterprises or services somehow "belong to the people". You do not seem to dispute the claim that the state is a repressive instrument that operates in the interest oif the capitalist class as a whole. To support nationalisation is actually to endorse and give sustenance to this instrument. I say workers should follow a policy of strict abstentionism or neutrality on the question of privatisation versus nationalisation which in the end is a capitalist issue not a working class issue. They should militantly pursue their class interests whether in the private sector or the state sector and not seek to ally themselves with sections of the capitalist class in wanting to expand the latter

Maybe so but it hardly aids "crushing the capitalist state" by advocating the extension of ownership by this self same capitalist state into areas of industry currently under private ownership does it now?

I see the question of nationalization being the same as the question if workers should fight for better conditions from their capitalists masters. It is a huge mistake to only support workers when they are trying to overthrow capitalism, we want the workers to keep pushing to the capitalists even if just for gains within capitalism as the act of pushing the capitalists back gives workers experience in class struggle and every gain of the workers weakens the capitalist class.

Devrim

12th October 2009, 15:28

Psy

12th October 2009, 15:44

Sure, in some cases the government steps in before it's too late, but I think it's fair to say that that isn't always the case, it doesn't operate in such a predictable way like that.

You also had most cities nationalizing the little public transit companies back in the early 20th century into one unified transit system.

;)

The previous group that was network rail did go bankrupt http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2608527.stm in 2002, trust me on this -- Cappies do not necessarily learn from their mistakes. Give this a gander too http://www.nce.co.uk/news/business/without-change-we-will-fail-network-rails-coucher-tells-suppliers/5205218.article.

I'm sure it could go bankrupt before the gov could even get its act together to nationalise it. I think you're overestimating the power of the governments to regulate every section of their economies.

It is not regulation it is simply the government using its funds to buy bankrupt companies, kinda like the last bailout but instead of getting ownership of worthless assets the government would become full owner of the company in question.

Haha, you don't understand the railways here. :p One often wonders if an entire trains/tubes strike would have the same effect (runing railway replacement bus services as always) as if one signalman didn't turn up or there was a tiny bit of rain (god knows what would happen if both occurred).
Here bus drivers are usually in the same union as tram and subway drivers so when they strike there are no replacement buses: you either walk, bike or drive during a strike the latter being a poor option due to the extra traffic making traffic move slower then pedestrians.

12th October 2009, 15:59

You also had most cities nationalizing the little public transit companies back in the early 20th century into one unified transit system.

But they were all separate company-run lines in the beginning. Also, on a side note, I'm pretty sure Australia runs a privatised train system now too (despite previously having all the lines nationalised).

It is not regulation it is simply the government using its funds to buy bankrupt companies, kinda like the last bailout but instead of getting ownership of worthless assets the government would become full owner of the company in question.

I would genuinely be surprised to see the UK government fully nationalise NR and all the train companies, I'm sure I'm not the only one. Time will tell but I can tell you that it's nigh on impossible. Remember that owning the train tracks and some right to regulate (which is exactly what NR does) is not at all the same as owning the rolling stock.

If the conservatives get in (and they definitely will), you can guarantee there will be absolutely 0 chance of it being nationalised.

Here bus drivers are usually in the same union as tram and subway drivers so when they strike there are no replacement buses: you either walk, bike or drive during a strike the latter being a poor option due to the extra traffic making traffic move slower then pedestrians.

The unions for bus drivers tend to be Unite here unfortunately, the RMT would be significantly better, having said that, black cab drivers being in the RMT is surprisingly interesting and significant. I would of course fully support them even if they did deprive me of a needed service.

Psy

12th October 2009, 19:44

But they were all separate company-run lines in the beginning. Also, on a side note, I'm pretty sure Australia runs a privatised train system now too (despite previously having all the lines nationalised).

Right and the local states took over tracks, stations, rolling sock and buses (in some cases they even took over ferries and docks)

I would genuinely be surprised to see the UK government fully nationalise NR and all the train companies, I'm sure I'm not the only one. Time will tell but I can tell you that it's nigh on impossible. Remember that owning the train tracks and some right to regulate (which is exactly what NR does) is not at all the same as owning the rolling stock.

If the conservatives get in (and they definitely will), you can guarantee there will be absolutely 0 chance of it being nationalised.

The Canadian National Railway was charted by Canadian conservatives for nationalistic reasons, of course we are talking about conservatives of 1918.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

12th October 2009, 22:17

What about the nationalization of land?

What about it? Do you think it can be seperated from discussion about nationalisation in general?

I see the question of nationalization being the same as the question if workers should fight for better conditions from their capitalists masters. It is a huge mistake to only support workers when they are trying to overthrow capitalism, we want the workers to keep pushing to the capitalists even if just for gains within capitalism as the act of pushing the capitalists back gives workers experience in class struggle and every gain of the workers weakens the capitalist class.

Whilst Robbo will may like to reply to you himself; I think it is mistaken that you equate nationalisation and the fight for better conditions. I won't speak for Robbo in this regard, but do I support any and all workers' struggling for the defence and/or improvement of their living and working conditions. However, as I noted in my post above, the struggle for nationalisation is not this struggle. Nationalisation is not in any way a threat to the capitalist order (it does not 'push the capitalists back'), nor a gain for workers.

Psy

12th October 2009, 23:22

Whilst Robbo will may like to reply to you himself; I think it is mistaken that you equate nationalisation and the fight for better conditions. I won't speak for Robbo in this regard, but do I support any and all workers' struggling for the defence and/or improvement of their living and working conditions. However, as I noted in my post above, the struggle for nationalisation is not this struggle. Nationalisation is not in any way a threat to the capitalist order (it does not 'push the capitalists back'), nor a gain for workers.

It does push the capitalists back, again if we look at Canadian National Railway and their privatization safety fell off a cliff once it was privatized as its new capitalists masters said safety was costly while the state focused on safety as it was using the railway as a symbol of nationalism (basically while nationalized the state took credit of the hard work of its workers of the CNR they at least gave the workers the means to properly do their job, when the capitalists took over they took away the means for workers to do a good job then blamed workers for every accident). Also when the CNR was nationalized it serviced unprofitable lines as the state was providing a service, when privatized the unprofitable lines were dropped and rural communities died out instantly died out as they lost cheap transportation causing capitalists to just relocate causing crippling unemployment in these rual communities causing the communities to die.

What are you saying is that all this is irrelvent to worker struggles.

13th October 2009, 03:28

Right and the local states took over tracks, stations, rolling sock and buses (in some cases they even took over ferries and docks)

Yeah, but it's because they were all started out as private enterprises. The only reason they go through nationalisation and privatisation now is purely because of Capitalist governments' incompetences.

The Canadian National Railway was charted by Canadian conservatives for nationalistic reasons, of course we are talking about conservatives of 1918.

One of the only things nationalised by conservatives here has been the disgustingly filthy reactionary corporation we all know and hate as british petroleum. Churchill espoused nationalistic sentiment expressing "support" for several things but I think the action of propping up BP speaks for itself.

Die Neue Zeit

13th October 2009, 03:30

What about it? Do you think it can be seperated from discussion about nationalisation in general?

I think so, since the state doesn't deal with employees in a "business" manner when owning the land, as opposed to the enterprise. There are, of course, tax collectors and land value assessors, but it's a completely different ball game.

By the way, the discussions here so far haven't taken into consideration municipalization. :(

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th October 2009, 03:42

It does push the capitalists back...

On the claim that nationalisation 'pushes the capitalists back', again, I point to the policies of post-war reconstruction following WWII (to choose just one of the most significant) where it was the bourgeoisie of all respective nations which become the most ardent adovcates of nationalisation and Keynesian-Fordist policies of state capitalism.

Also when the CNR was nationalized it serviced unprofitable lines as the state was providing a service, when privatized the unprofitable lines were dropped and rural communities died out instantly died out as they lost cheap transportation causing capitalists to just relocate causing crippling unemployment in these rual communities causing the communities to die.

Again we see the myth of nationalised enterprises as being non-capitalist, i.e. as providers of 'services' and not as the producers of commodities. It was not out of the good heart of the ruling class that rural railway lines were kept open in nationalised railway systems (whilst this may be the case in the Canadian example cited, we can just as easily provide dozens of examples of states cutting similar provisions precisely because they have become unprofitable, again, I would point you toward the current state of NSW Health services and public transport and the changes being made here). I can't comment too specifically as I'm not entirely familiar with this case but obviously the state found it, even in its apparent unprofitability, worth sustaining. One reason you note is the ideological value it had, but equally we need to consider for whom it was unprofitable to sustain (for the private owner, maybe, for the state, maybe not). This is also the case with matter of safety in which there are obviously ancillary benefits (for example in the private enterprise the cost of injuries cause by safety accidents is born by the state and hence why safety measures would undermine profitability; but in a state enterprise it may prove to be far more cost effective to prevent injury rather than paying for it afterwards). In reality this example does not at all support the claim that nationalisation 'pushes back the capitalists'.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th October 2009, 03:45

I think so, since the state doesn't deal with employees in a "business" manner when owning the land, as opposed to the enterprise.

The effect of which is? What is the significance of this fact to the discussion at hand?

There are, of course, tax collectors and land assessors, but it's a completely different ball game.

I don't see why, though that's a discussion I'm not sure is worth getting into where where there are bigger fish to dry.

By the way, the discussions here so far haven't taken into consideration municipalization. :(

Would you care to? What about it?

Die Neue Zeit

13th October 2009, 03:51

The effect of which is? What is the significance of this fact to the discussion at hand?

Land is part of the privatization/nationalization discussion, so I wanted to point this out. Struggles to take into public ownership the land are progressive.

Also, my take on the general question is that of national-democratization, not mere nationalization.

Would you care to? What about it?

My comments on municipalization (or municipal-democratization, to be more accurate) weren't a response to you, but a general response for the discussion in this thread.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th October 2009, 04:21

Struggles to take into public ownership the land are progressive.

In what sense?

Also, my take on the general question is that of national-democratization, not mere nationalization.

What is your take?

Psy

13th October 2009, 04:29

Yeah, but it's because they were all started out as private enterprises. The only reason they go through nationalisation and privatisation now is purely because of Capitalist governments' incompetences.

Which they did back then too.

One of the only things nationalised by conservatives here has been the disgustingly filthy reactionary corporation we all know and hate as british petroleum. Churchill espoused nationalistic sentiment expressing "support" for several things but I think the action of propping up BP speaks for itself.
In Canada in 1918 conservatives loved the right-wing economic theories coming out recently defeated Germany, they were impressed with how fast their enemy Germany industrialized and how strong the Germany military was during the war the Great War (First World War) so embraced the right-wing capitalist theories of Fredric List from Germany and undertook many state backed projects to rapidly industrialize Canada in hopes to industrialize like Germany did leading up to The Great War of course this couldn't happen without first bailing out the failed railways so they did just that.

Die Neue Zeit

13th October 2009, 04:36

In what sense?

Because land would cease to be a commodity, perhaps?

What is your take?

You've read my stuff. Even within the context of a bourgeois state, mere nationalizations aren't enough, or even those with token governmental oversight and related bureaucracies.

13th October 2009, 04:42

Which they did back then too.

In Canada in 1918 conservatives loved the right-wing economic theories coming out recently defeated Germany, they were impressed with how fast their enemy Germany industrialized and how strong the Germany military was during the war the Great War (First World War) so embraced the right-wing capitalist theories of Fredric List from Germany and undertook many state backed projects to rapidly industrialize Canada in hopes to industrialize like Germany did leading up to The Great War of course this couldn't happen without first bailing out the failed railways so they did just that.

There isn't particularly more wars on the cards anyway, I don't think the need to rapidly nationalise industries is coming anytime soon, perhaps the only way would be if several civil wars were happening spontaneously, but even then I can't see it being a material necessity for Capitalists.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on how powerful nationalisation is, if the government has a complete grip over regulatotion and is threatening to cut contracts to the companies providing the work, could you not argue that there is a pretty high potential to provide higher quality services?

They argue that with the railway networks here, even though it isn't true in terms of service provided. However, you can certainly see a much larger profit going back to the government since privatisation.

Psy

13th October 2009, 04:56

On the claim that nationalisation 'pushes the capitalists back', again, I point to the policies of post-war reconstruction following WWII (to choose just one of the most significant) where it was the bourgeoisie of all respective nations which become the most ardent adovcates of nationalisation and Keynesian-Fordist policies of state capitalism.

To get out of their weakened state, when they were no longer in a weakened state is limited their power epically in the face of a crisis of over production like in the 1970's.

Again we see the myth of nationalised enterprises as being non-capitalist, i.e. as providers of 'services' and not as the producers of commodities. It was not out of the good heart of the ruling class that rural railway lines were kept open in nationalised railway systems (whilst this may be the case in the Canadian example cited, we can just as easily provide dozens of examples of states cutting similar provisions precisely because they have become unprofitable, again, I would point you toward the current state of NSW Health services and public transport and the changes being made here). I can't comment too specifically as I'm not entirely familiar with this case but obviously the state found it, even in its apparent unprofitability, worth sustaining. One reason you note is the ideological value it had, but equally we need to consider for whom it was unprofitable to sustain (for the private owner, maybe, for the state, maybe not). This is also the case with matter of safety in which there are obviously ancillary benefits (for example in the private enterprise the cost of injuries cause by safety accidents is born by the state and hence why safety measures would undermine profitability; but in a state enterprise it may prove to be far more cost effective to prevent injury rather than paying for it afterwards). In reality this example does not at all support the claim that nationalisation 'pushes back the capitalists'.

The bourgeois state have interests beyond that of individual capitalists the largest being they care about their own survival thus will fund programs to: pacify its citizens, increase its influence and to make itself rich.

Psy

13th October 2009, 05:05

There isn't particularly more wars on the cards anyway, I don't think the need to rapidly nationalise industries is coming anytime soon, perhaps the only way would be if several civil wars were happening spontaneously, but even then I can't see it being a material necessity for Capitalists.

We have de-industrialization, capitalists are gutting the industrial base which modern states depend on for their power meaning eventually there could be a conflict of interest between the state wish to remain industrially powerful and the capitalists drive to cannibalize the nation's industry.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on how powerful nationalisation is, if the government has a complete grip over regulatotion and is threatening to cut contracts to the companies providing the work, could you not argue that there is a pretty high potential to provide higher quality services?

They argue that with the railway networks here, even though it isn't true in terms of service provided. However, you can certainly see a much larger profit going back to the government since privatisation.
The problem with regulation that instead of a manager that can be bribed to do the bidding of the state you have a capitalists that with maximize their profits regardless and find loopholes in regulations.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

13th October 2009, 05:32

To get out of their weakened state, when they were no longer in a weakened state is limited their power epically in the face of a crisis of over production like in the 1970's.

I think it is a grammar problem but I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Could you clarify what you mean?

We can agree that the bourgeoisie (as a general trend) abandoned the state capitalist policies of Keynesianism (replacing then with the state capitalist policies of neoliberalism) in response to the return of open crisis at the start of the 70's.

The bourgeois state have interests beyond that of individual capitalists the largest being they care about their own survival thus will fund programs to: pacify its citizens, increase its influence and to make itself rich.

I think I now better understand what you mean by nationalisation 'pushing [sections of] the capitalists back'. Saying this however, I'm confused as to why this is of any relevance. Does the restriction of the power of private capital by state capital constitute a progressive step for you? Whilst in the sense I now think you mean it, nationalisation can 'push the capitalists back', capitalism is not, quite the contrary.

Psy

13th October 2009, 06:16

I think it is a grammar problem but I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Could you clarify what you mean?

We can agree that the bourgeoisie (as a general trend) abandoned the state capitalist policies of Keynesianism (replacing then with the state capitalist policies of neoliberalism) in response to the return of open crisis at the start of the 70's.

Yes because nationalism while allowing capitalists recover during the long boom limited their rate of profit when the long boom ended.

I think I now better understand what you mean by nationalisation 'pushing [sections of] the capitalists back'. Saying this however, I'm confused as to why this is of any relevance. Does the restriction of the power of private capital by state capital constitute a progressive step for you? Whilst in the sense I now think you mean it, nationalisation can 'push the capitalists back', capitalism is not, quite the contrary.

It limits how much capitalists can dismantle the means of production as the state is more conscious of the needs of the capitalists class then individual capitalists, this limits how far capitalists can solve the crisis over production through dismantling the means of production. It is better for us to inherit a heavily industrialized world then one where capitalists melted down most of the machines down for scrap to cut their losses. It is also better to have workers actually working then part of the army of unemployed in rust belts where there is no significant industrial means of production to seize.

Psy

15th October 2009, 17:07

The advantage of nationalism is that capitalists have to maximize profits by all means possible if they don't they will be assimilated by capitalists that do, the state doesn't have this limitation as the state's primary source of power is not capital but armed bodies of men (police, armies, ect) this means nationalized production can sacrifice profits for build quality, working conditions, ect where private production simply can't.

This is why in Latin America you had revolutions to keep water nationalized and in the US you have movements to nationalize utilities in the face of people's utilities getting cut off.

15th October 2009, 17:10

We have de-industrialization, capitalists are gutting the industrial base which modern states depend on for their power meaning eventually there could be a conflict of interest between the state wish to remain industrially powerful and the capitalists drive to cannibalize the nation's industry.

In recent times, that conflict of interest is usually smoothed over. Almost every conflict nowdays is based on ecomonics.

The problem with regulation that instead of a manager that can be bribed to do the bidding of the state you have a capitalists that with maximize their profits regardless and find loopholes in regulations.

Which the government do not mind, as long as they deliver a good enough service, according to themselves.

Psy

15th October 2009, 17:49

In recent times, that conflict of interest is usually smoothed over. Almost every conflict nowdays is based on ecomonics.

No it is not, already the US military can't even throw as much equipment at Afghanistan that the USSR did due to the US now being industrially weaker then the USSR was in the 1980's. Capitalists react to crippling overproduction by dissembling the means of production, this is against the interest of militarizes as they want a large industrial capacity that can easily be re-tooled for war time, the Pentagon doesn't want GM to close factories as it means they can't re-tool them to make light armor in the event a third world war.

Which the government do not mind, as long as they deliver a good enough service, according to themselves.
It is cheaper to bribe government officials then to make it profitable for capitalists to do a satificatory job.

15th October 2009, 17:57

No it is not, already the US military can't even throw as much equipment at Afghanistan that the USSR did due to the US now being industrially weaker then the USSR was in the 1980's. Capitalists react to crippling overproduction by dissembling the means of production, this is against the interest of militarizes as they want a large industrial capacity that can easily be re-tooled for war time, the Pentagon doesn't want GM to close factories as it means they can't re-tool them to make light armor in the event a third world war.

Perhaps that's true, but that is what's happening. GM factories are closing, it's a fact. Nationalisation is not going to fix all of these deep-rooted problems.

It is cheaper to bribe government officials then to make it profitable for capitalists to do a satificatory job.

For who? For 'the country'? That's so subjective really.

I don't see how you can objectively say one is 'better for the country' or worse, if you look at the bigger picture can't nationalisation destabilise a government like it did to Clement Attlee in the 40s? I'm no capitalist, but that all seems obvious to me.

As socialists, why would we support something which has so many random factors attached?

Psy

15th October 2009, 18:45

For who? For 'the country'? That's so subjective really.

For the consumer, for example more parcels are damaged by private couriers then by public mail as properly handling packages is too costly for a capitalist as it means trucks are loaded and unload much more slowly (and the wages of the workers are worth more then paying for damages of whatever they break by working fast) while public mail workers can take their time loading trucks as them being unprofitable does not weaken the state like it does a capitalist. This is also why private airline baggage handlers are well known for simply throwing luggage around.

I don't see how you can objectively say one is 'better for the country' or worse, if you look at the bigger picture can't nationalisation destabilise a government like it did to Clement Attlee in the 40s? I'm no capitalist, but that all seems obvious to me.

It might make the capitalist class more militant but nationalization itself won't destabilize a state since a state's source of power is armed bodies of men remember powerful feudal imperial states existed that had no private property.

As socialists, why would we support something which has so many random factors attached?
Because we know capitalists can't significantly increase product quality, working conditions and worker living conditions due the declining rate of profit.

Coggeh

22nd October 2009, 21:19

.
I think I now better understand what you mean by nationalisation 'pushing [sections of] the capitalists back'. Saying this however, I'm confused as to why this is of any relevance. Does the restriction of the power of private capital by state capital constitute a progressive step for you? Whilst in the sense I now think you mean it, nationalisation can 'push the capitalists back', capitalism is not, quite the contrary.
The empowerment of the working class movement is a progressive step for any communist.But regardless nationalisation brings benefits to not just the workers who who working in public services (as we can see when we compare pay rates and conditions between state employed workers and private ones) but also to the wider working class State healthcare vs Private healthcare etc when you compare just about any situation between bourgeois nationalisation and privatisation nationalisation is better for the working class .

Any gain and benefit for the working class should be supported and fought for . As leftists however we must point out reforms are not the be all and end all and to really secure such reforms and improve on them we need a revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism .

NiccolÃ² Rossi

23rd October 2009, 07:13

But regardless nationalisation brings benefits to ... the workers who [are] working in public services (as we can see when we compare pay rates and conditions between state employed workers and private ones)

This has already been debunked earlier in this thread. You are wrongly conflating nationalisation with improved living and working conditions. You are completely neglecting both the objective determination of the value of the labour power of workers in nationalised and private enterprises, and the class struggle and its relation to their conditions (eg. militancy of workers in nationalised enterprises).

nationalisation ... also [benefits] the wider working class State healthcare vs Private healthcare etc when you compare just about any situation between bourgeois nationalisation and privatisation nationalisation is better for the working class .

This has also been dealt with previously. When the state takes on the cost of healthcare, transport, etc. they are paid for through taxes or through cuts (including jobs and wages for workers within the enterprise, but also to the provision of the service, see the decommisioning of train/bus routes as just one example). The state is a capitalist creature like any other and as such, it obeys the laws of the system.

Psy

23rd October 2009, 11:41

This has already been debunked earlier in this thread. You are wrongly conflating nationalisation with improved living and working conditions. You are completely neglecting both the objective determination of the value of the labour power of workers in nationalised and private enterprises, and the class struggle and its relation to their conditions (eg. militancy of workers in nationalised enterprises).

This has also been dealt with previously. When the state takes on the cost of healthcare, transport, etc. they are paid for through taxes or through cuts (including jobs and wages for workers within the enterprise, but also to the provision of the service, see the decommisioning of train/bus routes as just one example). The state is a capitalist creature like any other and as such, it obeys the laws of the system.

Yet every deregulated and privatized industry has quickly led to lower wages, worse working conditions and higher cost to consumers. Privatization electricity is a good example of this, were rates went through the roof in every market around the world privatization of electricity occurred without exception, as every national electric company was producing at cost thus profits were impossible at the rates national electric companies were charging, working conditions and wages also rapidly fell as again private capitalists couldn't maximize profits with the labor costs the national electric companies had.

The reason why every state run electric company on the planet had higher labor costs and lower rates was they existed to centrally plan electric production and distribution for the interest of the state and not to make profits. The rate were lower because it became part of the public debate due to it being run by the state (thus bureaucrats were kicked out of office by voters for too high rates), for example if electricity was nationalized in the US it would be political suicide for the US government to cut electricity off to the poor during this crisis. Working conditions were higher because the capitalist states just couldn't crack down on workers as effectively as capitalists.

Psy

4th February 2010, 21:57

I've been thinking about this recently, I would like to add that we as Marxist should point out that those that push for privatization are disingenuous. They frame privatization as reducing a burden on the working class, that the free market would magically lower costs bringing lower prices and better service. Any Marxist should know capitalist companies only care about profit and will try to maximize the rate of return so privatization won't give consumers any deal.

Lets take Canadian National Railway as an example, the privatization lobby pointed to it being a drain on tax dollars but what is omitted even today is highways are also non-profitable, that the government absorbed services from CNR that was subsidized by CNR profitable services meaning the tax burden grew as services was cut back and accidents on the CNR as grew since privatization as maintenance is slashed to increase profits. It should also be noted both the US and Canada are talking about high speed rail service like what the CNR ran in the 1970's back when it was nationalized that pundits at the time said was a waste of money.

You could also look at electricity where privatization has only led to higher rates. So there is a difference between private companies and national companies, true national companies are still part of the capitalist system but national companies are more susceptible to public and labor pressure.

4th February 2010, 22:15

Psy

4th February 2010, 22:23

As has been pointed out numerous times, any kind of reorganization of the structure of services can be an attack on workers.

If you want one example of nationalisation being used to get workers out of jobs, you can look to the nationalisation of the bank Northern Rock over here in the UK. There are loads of other examples, but none quite as modern as that, regarding nationalisation.
But they would have lost their jobs at Norther Rock if it was not taken over anyway since it was going to fold.

4th February 2010, 22:42

But they would have lost their jobs at Norther Rock if it was not taken over anyway since it was going to fold.

But this is thinking exactly as the government did, in a capitalist mindset.

The newly appointed chose to cut jobs as part of organisational "restructuring" in order to "improve efficiency", this was directly because of complete nationalisation of the bank and a perceived need to "make back taxpayers' money". The failure of capitalism as an economic system was the simple reason why the bank was about to fold in the first place.

With this kind of line on NR, what would your position be on important strikes? Would it be one of "nationalise this or that" or would it be to stand firmly with the workers?

Right now, majority-nationalised TEKEL workers in Turkey, are struggling against new government regulations to impose serious cuts to their pay and conditions, would you tell them to struggle for continued nationalisation of TEKEL even in the non-national sectors? Do you think that the new 4-c regulation for "public servants" is still not enough to understand that nationalisation means little?

Psy

4th February 2010, 23:40

But this is thinking exactly as the government did, in a capitalist mindset.

The newly appointed chose to cut jobs as part of organisational "restructuring" in order to "improve efficiency", this was directly because of complete nationalisation of the bank and a perceived need to "make back taxpayers' money". The failure of capitalism as an economic system was the simple reason why the bank was about to fold in the first place.

Understandable, we are talking about finical workers what kind of utility do they actually produce? Even with a workers revolution what good would Northern Rock provide?

With this kind of line on NR, what would your position be on important strikes? Would it be one of "nationalise this or that" or would it be to stand firmly with the workers?

I guess you don't know there are already workers that position is re-nationalize for example part of Doro-Chiba (http://www.doro-chiba.org/english/english.htm) position is for Japan Railways Group (JR) to re-nationalize so in the case of nationalizing JR it would be standing with workers as that is what they want.

Right now, majority-nationalised TEKEL workers in Turkey, are struggling against new government regulations to impose serious cuts to their pay and conditions, would you tell them to struggle for continued nationalisation of TEKEL even in the non-national sectors? Do you think that the new 4-c regulation for "public servants" is still not enough to understand that nationalisation means little?

Would you suggest them accepting privatization, every union without exception come out of privatization much weaker then when they went in. That said of course they should struggle against the state but they should never entertain the idea that the free market is a solution.

5th February 2010, 00:25

Understandable, we are talking about finical workers what kind of utility do they actually produce? Even with a workers revolution what good would Northern Rock provide?

None, the entire thing would be completely dissolved and all its assets absorbed into a centralised worker-run economy.

But with this line of thinking, it makes absolutely no difference. The fact is that they are workers, they are part of the worker-class and as such, they are to be fully supported in their efforts against the state, saying anything else is purely and utterly reactionary.

I guess you don't know there are already workers that position is re-nationalize for example part of Doro-Chiba (http://www.doro-chiba.org/english/english.htm) position is for Japan Railways Group (JR) to re-nationalize so in the case of nationalizing JR it would be standing with workers as that is what they want.

Of course I understand, nationalisation is frequently touted by all sorts of left groups as being great, but I'm showing you why it is not. Sure, you can stand by the workers of doro-chiba without endorsing their call of nationalisation.

Would you suggest them accepting privatization, every union without exception come out of privatization much weaker then when they went in.

They are not struggling against privatisation, they are struggling against cuts to their pay and conditions, even if pritavitisation was happening (although this is of course rare) and the conditions were improving for some workers, would you tell them to reject privatisation then.

That said of course they should struggle against the state but they should never entertain the idea that the free market is a solution.[/quote]

But the RMT barely existed before privatisation happened here so that's completely wrong, the struggle from them was actually born FROM privatisation and I am certain that other struggles have been born from this. Furthermore, we are supposed to support the workers, not just the bureaucratic unions that serve the state..

And finally, my point all along has been that there is no time, where workers should actively support bureaucratic restructuring procedures whether in the form of nationalisation, privatisation or anything else. We should examine workers' conditions and what's proposed in a very rational manner, workers' councils should independently reject, accept or force amendments to offers and demands sent down straight from the companies or through the union bureaucracy from the companies they work for.

Psy

5th February 2010, 01:29

None, the entire thing would be completely dissolved and all its assets absorbed into a centralised worker-run economy.
But with this line of thinking, it makes absolutely no difference. The fact is that they are workers, they are part of the worker-class and as such, they are to be fully supported in their efforts against the state, saying anything else is purely and utterly reactionary.

True but it explains why Northern Rock is not like national railways, utilities,ect.

Of course I understand, nationalisation is frequently touted by all sorts of left groups as being great, but I'm showing you why it is not. Sure, you can stand by the workers of doro-chiba without endorsing their call of nationalisation.

But they have a point, their a union dating back to the days of JNR (Japanese National Railways) the national railways that got privatized into Japan Railways Group. Doro-Chiba were fighting against JNR management prior to privatization, privatization meant their bosses took the kid gloves off.

From their web site:

Finally in 1973 we won the struggle against the Productivity Movement through enduring great hardships. In 1972 Isozaki, the then president of the JNR was obliged to make a self-criticism; unfair labor practices were disclosed. In those days, the management was not yet so shameless. Speeches of the chief executives in Shizuoka and Mito were recorded on a tape; they were commanding supervisors to crush the Kokuro and the Doro. These tapes were presented to the Public Corporation and Government Enterprise Labor Relations Commission and their unfair labor practices were proved. The self-criticism was the outcome of our persistent struggle.

Today the situation is totally different. The JR management openly defies the relief orders of Local Labor Relations Commissions on unfair labor practices, saying arrogantly, "Labor Relations Commissions are not trustworthy. Former leftists occupy the commissions. They are rubbish". Matsuda, president of the JR east-Japan, declares, "Orders of Labor Relations Commissions have no importance at all. We have Local Relations Commissions and the Public Corporation and Government Enterprise Labor Relations Commission. We have also three stages of trials. Let us fight out". But the JNR management in those days was still naive. The JNR executive apologized for unfair labor practices in the course of parliamentary interrogation.

So naturally they see that the JNR exploited them less then JR does.

They are not struggling against privatisation, they are struggling against cuts to their pay and conditions, even if pritavitisation was happening (although this is of course rare) and the conditions were improving for some workers, would you tell them to reject privatisation then.

Yes I would still reject privatisation, why should the bulk of workers suffer so some workers can benifit? Also unions always get crushed by privitzation without exception as privitization always strengthens the capitalists.

But the RMT barely existed before privatisation happened here so that's completely wrong, the struggle from them was actually born FROM privatisation and I am certain that other struggles have been born from this. Furthermore, we are supposed to support the workers, not just the bureaucratic unions that serve the state..

But Doro-Chiba was struggling against the JNR decades before it was privatized and there were other nationalized workers that struggled against their bosses and still are.

And finally, my point all along has been that there is no time, where workers should actively support bureaucratic restructuring procedures whether in the form of nationalisation, privatisation or anything else. We should examine workers' conditions and what's proposed in a very rational manner, workers' councils should independently reject, accept or force amendments to offers and demands sent down straight from the companies or through the union bureaucracy from the companies they work for.
This ingores that the state is more susceptible to public pressure then indivudial capitalists, this is key reason beougise states allow the privitazatization of nationalized industries.

Klaatu

5th February 2010, 01:39

The United States Postal Service is a nationalized industry (never was private anyway) and is run very efficiently, as a business. This is a great example of socialism in action: a thriving government-run enterprise. Another: The Veteran's Administration National Health Care. I've heard that it is even more efficient (from a business perspective) than many private health plans in this country. (who rip and gouge the wallets of their poor and meek customers)

By the way, the USPS does not pay it's CEOs (if they even exist) seven-figure salaries. Such is the beauty of socialist enterprises: no Richie-Rich's, just hard working, honest folks who actually care about their communities (not how much money they can extract for themselves)

5th February 2010, 01:46

True but it explains why Northern Rock is not like national railways, utilities,ect.

And how is that? That it provides a "public service"?

But they have a point, their a union dating back to the days of JNR (Japanese National Railways) the national railways that got privatized into Japan Railways Group. Doro-Chiba were fighting against JNR management prior to privatization, privatization meant their bosses took the kid gloves off.

From their web site: .. So naturally they see that the JNR exploited them less then JR does.

I am not specifically aware of the details in this struggle, but I really doubt it is as simple as that, it never could be as simple as "nationalisation or privatisation".

Yes I would still reject privatisation, why should the bulk of workers suffer so some workers can benifit? Also unions always get crushed by privitzation without exception as privitization always strengthens the capitalists.

What bulk of workers suffer? I said in the case of privatisation offering workers slightly better conditions, are you telling me that that's permanently impossible in every case ever?

Also, your ideas on unions are really bad. Do you think that the TEKEL workers marched against their own union confederational building (Turk-IS) just because they wanted to? Do you think that the NUM sold out miners because they had the best interests of miners at heart?

This ingores that the state is more susceptible to public pressure then indivudial capitalists, this is key reason beougise states allow the privitazatization of nationalized industries.

It depends how that "pressure" is applied.

Your entire idea is that it must all be done officially and through the union bureaucracy. This is wrong and is what makes you think that only nationalisation can work. There are so many examples of unions selling out workers to the point of workers attacking their unions, so I don't see why you think this.

Psy

5th February 2010, 02:02

And how is that? That it provides a "public service"?

No, that utility (i.e use-value) is being produced.

I am not specifically aware of the details in this struggle, but I really doubt it is as simple as that, it never could be as simple as "nationalisation or privatisation".

How about privatization brings greater exploitation.

What bulk of workers suffer? I said in the case of privatisation offering workers slightly better conditions, are you telling me that that's permanently impossible in every case ever?

You said some workers and actually yes it is impossible for a privatized industry to give better conditions especially now that the long boom has been over for decades.

Also, your ideas on unions are really bad. Do you think that the TEKEL workers marched against their own union confederational building (Turk-IS) just because they wanted to? Do you think that the NUM sold out miners because they had the best interests of miners at heart?

It depends how that "pressure" is applied.

Your entire idea is that it must all be done officially and through the union bureaucracy. This is wrong and is what makes you think that only nationalisation can work. There are so many examples of unions selling out workers to the point of workers attacking their unions, so I don't see why you think this.

I'm not saying that, your saying that. Not all unions are bad and when workers overthrow bourgeois union they should replace it with a workers union.

5th February 2010, 02:19

No, that utility (i.e use-value) is being produced.

I suppose the question should be this: would you still advocate nationalisation in the case of NR or not?

How about privatization brings greater exploitation.

Only in the same way that any sort of capitalist business restructuring can

You said some workers and actually yes it is impossible for a privatized industry to give better conditions especially now that the long boom has been over for decades.

This is a broad and sweeping generalisation. Also, when I said "some workers" it was clear I meant this without unacceptable attacks on other workers. There is no particular reason why one must lead to the other as you are making out.

I'm not saying that, your saying that.

What in the world?

Not all unions are bad and when workers overthrow bourgeois union they should replace it with a workers union.

Do you want to show me any unions that aren't 'bad' presently? I am 100% confident you would point to the RMT, if you knew anything about them and I could rebutt your example almost immediately.

Psy

5th February 2010, 03:09

I suppose the question should be this: would you still advocate nationalisation in the case of NR or not?

What utility would they produce?

Nationalization only gives workers more bargaining power because the state wants to utility the workers produce. Capitalists really don't care about production as long as they the profits while nationalized industries are reversed, states care about production since they are funding production so the state can consume it in some form (even if indirectly through the public consuming).

NR does not fit into this as NR doesn't produce anything the state wants, it just nationalized it to save the markets.

Only in the same way that any sort of capitalist business restructuring can

See above.

This is a broad and sweeping generalisation. Also, when I said "some workers" it was clear I meant this without unacceptable attacks on other workers. There is no particular reason why one must lead to the other as you are making out.

If you have a nationalized industry in a post long boom world capitalists can't maintain worker living standards even if they wanted to as the only way they can maintain their rate of return is to constantly squeeze more surplus value from their workers.

What in the world?

Your putting words in mouth.

Do you want to show me any unions that aren't 'bad' presently? I am 100% confident you would point to the RMT, if you knew anything about them and I could rebutt your example almost immediately.
The I.W.W.

Anyway every time workers take over means of production they do it either through a union be it forming their own union, taking over their old union or through a already militant union.

5th February 2010, 03:39

What utility would they produce?

Nationalization only gives workers more bargaining power because the state wants to utility the workers produce. Capitalists really don't care about production as long as they the profits while nationalized industries are reversed, states care about production since they are funding production so the state can consume it in some form (even if indirectly through the public consuming).

NR does not fit into this as NR doesn't produce anything the state wants, it just nationalized it to save the markets.

But you've avoided the question, how would you have supported the workers of NR? Or would you have simply let them go to the wolves because "it's inevitable".

With that same mentality, you could have said the mining industry was "doomed" here to because it wasn't making a profit, it wasn't providing a utility. You can follow that reasoning anytime, it can only lead to defeat if you follow it through. With most of these very important industries closing, with coordinated action amongst the working-class, it might seem stupid but revolution is actually the only option otherwise there are going to be mass job losses and the smashing of workers' living conditions.

If you have a nationalized industry in a post long boom world capitalists can't maintain worker living standards even if they wanted to as the only way they can maintain their rate of return is to constantly squeeze more surplus value from their workers.

Yes, so we have to struggle against them as much as possible until we have a revolution or until we are crushed, that means supporting the workers %100, whether it means fighting against restructuring in the form of nationalisation OR privatisation equally so.

The I.W.W.

Anyway every time workers take over means of production they do it either through a union be it forming their own union, taking over their old union or through a already militant union.

So you are a syndicalist? I think a revolutionary syndicalist union could work (such as the IWW of course), but not taking over the old unions or taking over reformist "social-democratic militant" unions. That said, I still support things like the shop stewards network.

Psy

5th February 2010, 04:30

But you've avoided the question, how would you have supported the workers of NR? Or would you have simply let them go to the wolves because "it's inevitable".

Yes support them but in their case nationalization did not change anything, I don't even think a strike would even be much a threat in the case of NR as the state didn't care if production stopped as they just nationalized NR to protect its assets.

With that same mentality, you could have said the mining industry was "doomed" here to because it wasn't making a profit, it wasn't providing a utility. You can follow that reasoning anytime, it can only lead to defeat if you follow it through. With most of these very important industries closing, with coordinated action amongst the working-class, it might seem stupid but revolution is actually the only option otherwise there are going to be mass job losses and the smashing of workers' living conditions.

I said utility not profit, if the coal miners were not producing utility Thatcher would not have cared if they went on strike, the fact Thatcher went to such length to crush the strike shows the miner were producing utility that the British state saw was strategic.

Yes, so we have to struggle against them as much as possible until we have a revolution or until we are crushed, that means supporting the workers %100, whether it means fighting against restructuring in the form of nationalisation OR privatisation equally so.

Nationalization is different from privatization as nationalization means you become a budget expense for a state with relatively deep pockets. Yes the state will cry about deficits but national workers can point to the military that on average makes up the bulk of every nations budget and now the huge bailout of the banks.

So you are a syndicalist? I think a revolutionary syndicalist union could work (such as the IWW of course), but not taking over the old unions or taking over reformist "social-democratic militant" unions. That said, I still support things like the shop stewards network.

If the workers are mobilized they can hijack even bourgeois unions and this has happened before where workers impeach the old leadership in a sudden revolution within the union.

cyu

5th February 2010, 20:31

2001 excerpt from http://everything2.com/title/privatization

The primary goal of privatization is to increase efficiency. The reasoning is that businesses that have monopoly control of a market have little reason to improve their service. The secondary goal of privatization is to provide the government with money for fiscal spending.

Unfortunately, the goal is often forgotten and only the method is remembered. There is currently a lawsuit instigated by UPS in an attempt to dismantle the Canadian Postal Service - an attempt to use the concept of privatization to reduce competition and gain monopoly power.

The usual method of privatization is to sell off the business to various financiers. The problem with this kind of privatization is that although new competition may be created, the control over these businesses has been lost. While representative governments have as their charter to treat their employees fairly, the handing over of control to individual capitalists (rather than the employees) results in a move toward a less representative society.

In addition, these businesses are often sold to foreign investors in return for foreign exchange. This short-term gain for the government results in long-term loss by the nation, as profits from their businesses are taken out of the country by the financiers.

Klaatu

6th February 2010, 05:01

I simply refuse to believe that "private industry is always more efficient"
Thus somehow 'superior' to publicly-owned industry

Reasons: private industry
* profits (sometimes immensely!)
* pays their top people tens of millions
* is taxed

Public (nationalized) commerce and industry
(costs can be lower) because...
* is non-profit
* pays less than the U.S. president makes, in all cases
* does not pay tax

While some private companies can be run efficiently,
I fail to see how certain others (such as banks) can
possibly be run more efficiently than if they were
publicly-owned (nationalized) In fact, my argument
is that, if all banks were owned and run by the
government, interest rates could (and probably would)
drop to affordable levels for all.

Right now, I am pretty pissed off at my bank for
raising my credit card interest rate from 12% all the way
up to 15% for no reason at all. I pay my bill ahead of
time every month, and maintain a balance, in other words,
I have perfect credit.

And they make a ton of money off of my sorry ass in
finance charges, but Nooo that's not good enough for
them...They just want MORE, so they can pay their CEOs
tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.

The Capitalist PIGS!

Just say "NO" to privatization of anything
because paying CEOs $millions is putting
expensive caviar on their plates and gold
toilet seats in their bathrooms. (probably
ivory too) and this is putting dog food on
OUR plates and forcing us out of our homes
to live in the street!

Red Commissar

6th February 2010, 07:16

If it was unavoidable, I'd only support the nationalization of industries that need to be shared with the entire nation rather than locally, such as utilities, public services, and major industries.

Other things I think should be left up to the people themselves. Syndicalism, worker's councils, or even co-op.

Nationalization is a very, very tricky thing to manage. The benefit is that they can be run pretty close to cost, but there's a significant risk of corruption and a bloated bureaucracy. On top of that nationalization isn't unique to socialism- it can be found in many different ideologies. Dirigisme by the Gaullist regime in France, and the old state industries in Imperial Germany and UK. It sets up the foundation of state capitalism and will be the undoing of the country in the end.

6th February 2010, 09:29

Yes support them but in their case nationalization did not change anything, I don't even think a strike would even be much a threat in the case of NR as the state didn't care if production stopped as they just nationalized NR to protect its assets.

Exactly, so.

So only massive solidarity from the class is going to save them, so only mass action that goes far beyond a simple strike is going to have any chance at working, I know that the struggle is over now, but at the time there certainly was more than just a defeatist "oh well too bad" struggle that should've been waged.

I said utility not profit, if the coal miners were not producing utility Thatcher would not have cared if they went on strike, the fact Thatcher went to such length to crush the strike shows the miner were producing utility that the British state saw was strategic.

This is ridiculous, don't you understand that she was phasing the mines out because they were inefficient? That's the whole reason she closed 90% of coilleries, if that's not linked to "producing utility" then I don't know what is. It's an absurd argument because producing utility at too high a cost, is going to be shut down.

That's why the miners' strike was beginning to inspire mass action from the class, possibly to a revolution, it was a struggle that had to either go one way or the other; the workers had to win otherwise they would lose, there was no inbetween.

Nationalization is different from privatization as nationalization means you become a budget expense for a state with relatively deep pockets. Yes the state will cry about deficits but national workers can point to the military that on average makes up the bulk of every nations budget and now the huge bailout of the banks.

This isn't connected to the way capitalists see things, nor is it connected to the struggle that workers have to wage.

If the workers are mobilized they can hijack even bourgeois unions and this has happened before where workers impeach the old leadership in a sudden revolution within the union.

I completely disagree here, in fact it may have been possible in the very early times of the 10s or 20s, but now the unions are firmly run as part of the state, there is no chance.

The only approach I can tolerate like this, is using some form of a shop stewards' network, possibly in combination with IWW/other syndicalist union dual-carding, along with independent workers' councils forming the actual struggle of the union rather than anyone above them.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

6th February 2010, 09:45

I draw attention to the line 'This country owes £175bn, it will take decades to pay it off (and we haven't even finished paying America for helping us out in WW1 & WW2) how can you propose adding more to that debt?', which simply isn't true. We could more than halve the national debt tomorrow if we wished - there is currently more than £90billion lost, every year, to tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal but ethically wrong, really a moral [and sometimes legal] grey affair).

So in reality, those who know economics, and don't have a vested interest in defending the current hierarchical economic structure, understand that the national debt in this country isn't a real problem, in that it can be reduced drastically, and rather painlessly (in terms of economic damage to the situation of the majority of working people) in a short space of time.

As for the rest of that post, just inane Capitalist drivel. What's the point in talking about competition, efficiency etc., when you have banks collapsing all around you, governments having to step in, oligarchies being established in privatised industries such as fuel, gas, electricity and so on (industries whose very privatisation was meant to be a model of free market economics). It is akin to when Chemical Ali or whatever his name is, was standing in the middle of Baghdad saying the allied forces had not taken the city, when they were marching around in the background.

This should be in OI or learning, it's not really relevant as a piece of Socialist politics news IMO.

Klaatu

6th February 2010, 16:47

Nationalization is a very, very tricky thing to manage. The benefit is that they can be run pretty close to cost, but there's a significant risk of corruption and a bloated bureaucracy.

Quite true. That is why I support a law (or even a constitutional amendment) which requires a minimum of a master's degree in some pertinent field (business, law, science, psychology, etc) in order to run for (at least top) governmental positions. This way, smart people run the country. That would be a start. The way the U.S. Congress is right now, there is technically nothing to prevent a monkey from being elected. And with some of the simian-level seat-warmers inhabiting that legislative chamber right now, there's no wonder the country is in the fix it is in.

What's the point in talking about competition, efficiency etc., when you have banks collapsing all around you, governments having to step in, oligarchies being established in privatised industries such as fuel, gas, electricity and so on (industries whose very privatisation was meant to be a model of free market economics).

When you give the store away to the gangsters, good luck getting it back. Deregulation and free trade agreements were a "foot-in-the-door" for the ultimate takeover of the country by plutocratic power. If this trend is not stopped, soon we will all be living under a corporate dictatorship.
It will be born from the ashes of the old capitalist system. (as an analogy, think of the movie "Alien," where the hideous monster erupts from the gut of the human victim)

Psy

6th February 2010, 17:17

Exactly, so.

So only massive solidarity from the class is going to save them, so only mass action that goes far beyond a simple strike is going to have any chance at working, I know that the struggle is over now, but at the time there certainly was more than just a defeatist "oh well too bad" struggle that should've been waged.

True

This is ridiculous, don't you understand that she was phasing the mines out because they were inefficient? That's the whole reason she closed 90% of coilleries, if that's not linked to "producing utility" then I don't know what is. It's an absurd argument because producing utility at too high a cost, is going to be shut down.

That's why the miners' strike was beginning to inspire mass action from the class, possibly to a revolution, it was a struggle that had to either go one way or the other; the workers had to win otherwise they would lose, there was no inbetween.

Yet more then 90% of the collieries were on strike thus why the British state intervened, if you look back at old news clip of the strike they mentioned the fact coal fired power plants might run out of coal before imports could reach them and if railway workers joined the strike they wouldn't have been able get coal from the docks to the power plants epically if railway workers blocked level crossing with trains to cut off access to docks and power plants by road (freight trains make a very good barricade), of course if workers at docks went to docks also went on strike it would have made it even harder for the state to break the strikes. So you are right the workers had to win or lose but the miners were still strategic thus why the state went to such length to get scabs into the mines.

This isn't connected to the way capitalists see things, nor is it connected to the struggle that workers have to wage.

Yes it is. For example would you have suggested workers of the New Newfoundland Railway fight nationalization in 1923? Even though nationalization meant railway workers kept their jobs till 1988 with better wages and working conditions then their comrades at private railways? What about the people of New Newfoundland, nationalization meant they got passenger service subsided by the federal government for decades. History proved nationalization was the best thing that happened to Newfoundland Railway workers as capitalists started to lose interest in having a railway in Newfoundland as the highways were built, thus nationalization of the Newfoundland Railway meant Newfoundland railway workers kept their jobs for about another 3-2 decades longer thanks to nationalization as it was not politically easy for politicians to simply close down the nationalized railway since it was very unpopular with the voting public of Newfoundland and the Canadian federal government had to bribe the Newfoundland provincial government $800 million Canadian dollars to stop their opposition to shutting the railway down.

You seem to think nationalization hurts workers, it doesn't as nationalization is never used to weaken workers, states can't exploit workers as efficiently as capitalist enterprises can thus profitability is not the primary driving force when a state nationalizes. Lets say for argument the US government totally nationalized General Motors (were are talking the kind of nationalization of the early 20th century) and planned to use them as a vehicle to subsidize the economy by selling vehicles to transit authorities at or below cost through GM even it meant it would have saved them from layoffs and possibility allowed laid-off workers to come back? Of course GM workers would still exploited under this but that would only mean union would fight GM for better conditions and eventually control of GM but there would be no point in fighting such nationalization by the state.

I completely disagree here, in fact it may have been possible in the very early times of the 10s or 20s, but now the unions are firmly run as part of the state, there is no chance.

The only approach I can tolerate like this, is using some form of a shop stewards' network, possibly in combination with IWW/other syndicalist union dual-carding, along with independent workers' councils forming the actual struggle of the union rather than anyone above them.
Right and by struggling within the bourgeois union they can crush attempts by the bourgeois union to crush them.

6th February 2010, 17:28

Yes it is. For example would you have suggested workers of the New Newfoundland Railway fight nationalization in 1923?

Not if it improved their working conditions, why would they? What would be the point?

Even though nationalization meant railway workers kept their jobs till 1988 with better wages and working conditions then their comrades at private railways? What about the people of New Newfoundland, nationalization meant they got passenger service subsided by the federal government for decades. History proved nationalization was the best thing that happened to Newfoundland Railway workers as capitalists started to lose interest in having a railway in Newfoundland as the highways were built, thus nationalization of the Newfoundland Railway meant Newfoundland railway workers kept their jobs for about another 3-2 decades longer thanks to nationalization as it was not politically easy for politicians to simply close down the nationalized railway since it was very unpopular with the voting public of Newfoundland and the Canadian federal government had to bribe the Newfoundland provincial government $800 million Canadian dollars to stop their opposition to shutting the railway down.

And as my examples have shown, that isn't always the case.

You seem to think nationalization hurts workers

No, only as much as any drive for efficiency or restructuring could, I have made this point many times now. The bad argument of saying I am for free markets or whatever is absolute rubbish.

it doesn't as nationalization is never used to weaken workers, states can't exploit workers as efficiently as capitalist enterprises can thus

I really don't know how you came to this conclusion, but it's very plainly wrong.

profitability is not the primary driving force when a state nationalizes. Lets say for argument the US government totally nationalized General Motors (were are talking the kind of nationalization of the early 20th century) and planned to use them as a vehicle to subsidize the economy by selling vehicles to transit authorities at or below cost through GM even it meant it would have saved them from layoffs and possibility allowed laid-off workers to come back? Of course GM workers would still exploited under this but that would only mean union would fight GM for better conditions and eventually control of GM but there would be no point in fighting such nationalization by the state.

But you have just used some examples, again this isn't always the case, again I will reiterate; if conditions are going to improve then there won't be opposition to that, unless they are not improving enough.

Right and by struggling within the bourgeois union they can crush attempts by the bourgeois union to crush them.

We should regard unions as a means to an end, they can only help some workers improve their conditions and get legal representation of sorts, we certainly can't "take them over" and we definitely can't support the union bureaucrats as political figures. Shop stewards have a clear choice when it comes down to it: they are on the side of workers and struggle in their capacity within the union to aid them, or they side with the union against the workers.

Psy

6th February 2010, 18:18

Not if it improved their working conditions, why would they? What would be the point?

Right

And as my examples have shown, that isn't always the case.

I'll address this later in the post.

No, only as much as any drive for efficiency or restructuring could, I have made this point many times now. The bad argument of saying I am for free markets or whatever is absolute rubbish.

You seem to have suggested reorganization by management either towards nationalization or privatization hurts workers with your comment "any kind of reorganization of the structure of services can be an attack on workers".

I really don't know how you came to this conclusion, but it's very plainly wrong.

Bourgeois states don't nationalize industry because they think they can exploit workers better then the capitalists that run it can. They are well aware they are far more susceptible to public option then private enterprises, no the bourgeois states usually have a very different agenda for the means of production then the former capitalists owners. If a bourgeois state simply wanted the profits they would simply invest in the company, they take it over to control the means of production to change the priority from profits to interests of the state.

We should regard unions as a means to an end, they can only help some workers improve their conditions and get legal representation of sorts, we certainly can't "take them over" and we definitely can't support the union bureaucrats as political figures. Shop stewards have a clear choice when it comes down to it: they are on the side of workers and struggle in their capacity within the union to aid them, or they side with the union against the workers.
It is possible to take them over, it actually is easier then taking over means of production, the militant union get the majority of the bourgeoisie union members on their side then overthrow the bourgeoisie union leadership.