Nationalisation vs. Privatisation

[Lyev]

So yeah, I'm getting kind of confused here. What does each entail is basically what I'm asking. Nationalisation is state-owned enterprise and privatisation is letting business do what it wants, but other than that my knowledge is limited. I know generally privatisation is not a very a stable (boom then bust) way of running an economy and generally quite a rightist, Friedmanite way of thinking. I wanted to specifically ask peoples opinions on Thatcher and her priviatisation and her repression of miners and trade-unions and if that's linked at all to privatisation, oh and her relationship with Reagan, who had some similiar policies to hers. Also I'd like to know about the Obama dispute and what he's got going with his half-arse health service reform. I know it's a compromise, but why? And also I'm a bit confused about free-markets like the Asian "tiger" economies between the 60s and 90s.

So, yeah, nationalisation versus privatisation; discuss. Oh also with specific examples like the ones I've mentioned ;). Thanks for your comments comrades.

[bailey_187]

Well, in my opinion all business should be nationalised, but the Social Democrat/liberal view is that the large industries that are natural monopolies or are very able to become a monopoly should be nationalised.
So like in the case of trains, there are high fixed costs (costs that dont change as output changes) such as laying the rail tracks.
For the rail firm to be efficent, it should be operating at
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/economies_of_scale.PNG
Q2 as that is were costs in the LRAC have reached the lowest point.
However, in the case of firms such as in rail, the costs are so expensive to get to this point in Q2, that only one or very few firms would be able to reach that level of output (due to the limits in the size of the market). So for a firm to be operating efficently in thisindustry it has to be a monopoly. The Socialdemocrat argument is that it is better to have this monopoly in public hands so the monopoly does not charge excessive prices.
However, the Thatcherites argue that the firm in public hands in inefficent. Therefore they privatise it and allow firms to run on the rail tracks as franchises now. So Virgin is (i think) rewarded the ability to run on a train line. The Thatcherite theory i think is that as these firms are rewarded their positions in the market and can have it taken away (the market is contestable) then the firms will operate fairly or they will loose their franchise.

Hope that explains your question? Ill try answer more if theres anything else and i can.

[robbo203]

So yeah, I'm getting kind of confused here. What does each entail is basically what I'm asking. Nationalisation is state-owned enterprise and privatisation is letting business do what it wants, but other than that my knowledge is limited. I know generally privatisation is not a very a stable (boom then bust) way of running an economy and generally quite a rightist, Friedmanite way of thinking. I wanted to specifically ask peoples opinions on Thatcher and her priviatisation and her repression of miners and trade-unions and if that's linked at all to privatisation, oh and her relationship with Reagan, who had some similiar policies to hers. Also I'd like to know about the Obama dispute and what he's got going with his half-arse health service reform. I know it's a compromise, but why? And also I'm a bit confused about free-markets like the Asian "tiger" economies between the 60s and 90s.

So, yeah, nationalisation versus privatisation; discuss. Oh also with specific examples like the ones I've mentioned ;). Thanks for your comments comrades.

Why do you see the choice as being limited to just nationalisation versus privatisation which, after all, are just two different ways of running capitalism? There is another choice you know which involves the complete rejection of the buying and selling system, wage labour, profit maximisation and so on. I believe its called socialism/communism...

[ponyfang]

As such is capitalism. In my opinion (and this probably does in fact NOT answer your question but anywho...) People confuse communism and capitalism by reversing their economy types. Communism is in fact the "Free market" and the capitalist economy is the "private market" The ability in communism to openly hold business and yet disstribute your goods cheeply among the population seems freeer than charging excessively higher rates and taxes on private goods. E.G. The worker who makes an ipod in a factory knows in fact that it only requires about ten dollars to produce the product. he then gets perhaps one% of the companies wealth then taxes etc. But on his trip to walmart he decides he wants to purchase a product that he in the factory made yet it is two hundred dollars. Is he making any money at all? He cant even own his product that he rightly deserves because all that really matters is the true exploitation of the working people. In private market the bourgeoisie controls the money income by far more than the people. As i have recently spoken with a professional on the subject she has reported that the department of agriculture this year has done a report, and in fact only ten% of americas people control wealth and the amount they control is eighty% of ALL american currency. So as far as my opinion goes the workers should be able to produce among themselves and distribute among themselves freely and to the societies out there who happen to want those products well charge them for it but for the people making the product why should they be charged an unforgiving price for their own product. Hope that says something although as stated it might not be what your looking for.

[Demogorgon]

Nationalisation and privatisation are not economic systems or even types of running an economy. Rather they are individual government acts. Nationalisation is the Government taking ownership of some entity or another and privatisation is it selling something in its possession, generally in the form of shares.

There are various other related things a Government can do as well. It can municipalise something which means either transferring it from central Government ownership to municipal ownership or from the private sector to municipalities depending. They also occasionally mutualise firms. Which is normally done as a sort of privatisation where instead of selling the firm off they transfer authority to a trust that operates in theory on behalf of the workers (as I say, in theory) and there will be some profit sharing. This can also happen to a private sector firm but that is rare.

Finally, and this is very rare indeed, it can turn an entity directly over to those working for it to run as they see fit, but this last one has not been seen in Western Capitalism except perhaps on a very small scale.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not a fan of the world nationalisation. It has horrible State-Capitalist/Statist 'Social Democrat' connotations.

Rather, comrade (this is to the OP), you should understand more about workers' control of industry. This entails not only collective ownership (nationalisation in the first instance), but workers owning the factories, offices etc. that they work in, and making decisions relating to production and output democratically amongst themselves, as opposed to such decisions being relayed from top to bottom by a 'boss' (in a private company) or by some sort of government representative (in a state-capitalist/other capitalist economic system where an industry/company has been nationalised under government control).

[robbo203]

I'm not a fan of the world nationalisation. It has horrible State-Capitalist/Statist 'Social Democrat' connotations.

Rather, comrade (this is to the OP), you should understand more about workers' control of industry. This entails not only collective ownership (nationalisation in the first instance), but workers owning the factories, offices etc. that they work in, and making decisions relating to production and output democratically amongst themselves, as opposed to such decisions being relayed from top to bottom by a 'boss' (in a private company) or by some sort of government representative (in a state-capitalist/other capitalist economic system where an industry/company has been nationalised under government control).

A contradiction in terms. You can't have collective ownership of industry by workers and workers owning the factories etc they work in. That means the workers who don't work in these factories dont own them so that there is not, after all, "collective ownership". Its merely sectional ownership of sections of the means of production by sections of the working class (assuming this was even possible)

Nationalisation or state ownership has of course got sod all to do with common ownership

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sorry I should have made myself clear - although you are wrong to say that collective ownership has nothing to do with workers' control.

State ownership can occur without the workers owning the means of production. There a numerous historical examples of this - post-war Britain, for example.

Workers' control of industry is inter-dependent on State ownership, providing the State is run, politically and economically, by the workers, and not by some elite vanguard party or otherwise.

Clearly, 'Collective ownership' is abstract in the sense that, a worker in London will not necessarily be able to make executive decisions about an outlet in Manchester. Rather, it denotes that the workers as a whole own the means of production, and also - and this really is the crucial point - that those who were previously wage slaves would thus be able to participate fully in the strategic decisions previously taken by a 'boss' type.

Unless you are advocating a top-down process of Nationalisation, which is alien to Socialism.

[robbo203]

Sorry I should have made myself clear - although you are wrong to say that collective ownership has nothing to do with workers' control.

State ownership can occur without the workers owning the means of production. There a numerous historical examples of this - post-war Britain, for example.

Workers' control of industry is inter-dependent on State ownership, providing the State is run, politically and economically, by the workers, and not by some elite vanguard party or otherwise.

Clearly, 'Collective ownership' is abstract in the sense that, a worker in London will not necessarily be able to make executive decisions about an outlet in Manchester. Rather, it denotes that the workers as a whole own the means of production, and also - and this really is the crucial point - that those who were previously wage slaves would thus be able to participate fully in the strategic decisions previously taken by a 'boss' type.

Unless you are advocating a top-down process of Nationalisation, which is alien to Socialism.

I dont advocate nationalisation at all in any shape or form. It is nothing to do with socialism and I dont even hold that it is enabling in the sense that Engels meant this in Socialism Utopian and Scientific - see the quote below - in providing the technical conditions (i.e. the socialisation of industrial production) that would supposedly benefit a future socialist /communist society. Nevertheless Engels is clear that nationalisation in whatever context it is applied is essentially a capitalist measure and cannot be anything other than this

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution

The point that I was getting which you dont seem to have understood is that there is an obvious contradiction in your position in calling for the "collective ownership" of industry by the working class while also stating that they should own "the factories, offices etc. that they work in." The clear implication is that workers who dont work in these factories and offices, dont own them . In which case what becomes of your so called "collective ownership" of industry by the working class ?

I haven't even touched on an even greater absurdity in your position -namely that of a working class exercising "collective ownership of industry" when the working class by defintion is constituted by its separation from, and non-ownership of, the means of production. In marxian terms, if there was genuine collective or common ownership of industry there would not be - and, indeed, could not be - a working class at all. Nor for that matter, a capitalist class whih is inseparable from the former. We would be living in a classless stateless communist/socialist society

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly, stop nitpicking as you did in your last paragraph. You know exactly what I meant. Yes, we would live in a classless society, but Socialism can only be acheived when all those who are currently part of the 'working class', in the class society we live in at the present time, acheive the ownership of the means of production. Perhaps my language was not totally representative of what I meant to say, but i'm sure you got my jist, we were mostly in agreement there.

With regards to my apparent confusion between 'collective ownership' and workers owning their own offices, outlets and factories, must I explain again? 'Common ownership' is denoted by the workers - or for the sake of argument, as we would be living in a classless society, might we say the citizens of said Socialist state - as a whole body, owning the means of production in their entirety.

Perhaps I was wrong in applying the word 'ownership' with regards to workers and their own places of work. I was not referring to financial ownership. Rather, they would have democratic control of their workplace, with an ability to make strategic decisions, which were previously commanded from above by managers and executives. Surely you see that it is necessary for workplaces to be run by their workers and not by a representative of the government. For that leads to centralisation, gross bureaucracy and the rise of a decision making strata in society, at the expense of those workers who do not have control over their workplace.

[robbo203]

Firstly, stop nitpicking as you did in your last paragraph. You know exactly what I meant. Yes, we would live in a classless society, but Socialism can only be acheived when all those who are currently part of the 'working class', in the class society we live in at the present time, acheive the ownership of the means of production. Perhaps my language was not totally representative of what I meant to say, but i'm sure you got my jist, we were mostly in agreement there..

With regards to my apparent confusion between 'collective ownership' and workers owning their own offices, outlets and factories, must I explain again? 'Common ownership' is denoted by the workers - or for the sake of argument, as we would be living in a classless society, might we say the citizens of said Socialist state - as a whole body, owning the means of production in their entirety

It is not actually "nitpicking" but, on the contrary, massively important to realise that common ownership of the means of production is completely incompatible with the existence of classes of any kind in the marxian sense of this term. It needs to stated unequivocally that with the establishment of common ownership the working class in this sense will cease to exist.

You have now corrected your earlier mistake by referring to the "citizens" that would populate a socialist society rather than the working class as such. However, you have have rather muddied the water by referring to these "citizens of said Socialist state" overlooking the obvious fact that there would not be a state in a socialist society since the non-existence of class ownership of the means of production (and hence classes as well) necessarily implies also the non-existence of that essential tool of class oppression which is precisely what we call the "state"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Again nitpicking.

I refer to the 'state' as the entity within whose boundaries a socialist system would operate (assuming that the world does not, at any one point, make an automatic transfor from the Capitalist mode into a fully Socialist society), rather than as an organ which has huge amounts of power vested in it.


But yes, I think we agree on the salient points here, you would just like to trip me up on my loose terminology. Understandable, I guess. Most of my posts in this thread have been in the ungodly hours after a long slave away at work;)

[Lyev]

Why do you see the choice as being limited to just nationalisation versus privatisation which, after all, are just two different ways of running capitalism? There is another choice you know which involves the complete rejection of the buying and selling system, wage labour, profit maximisation and so on. I believe its called socialism/communism...

I am familiar with socialism, thanks mister, but no one has really answered my questions; although they don't have much to do with Marxist theory I know. However, I thought it would be interesting to compare nationalised companies against privatised ones, maybe using the examples I talked about. But this is learning you know, and you haven't done anything to answer my question :(.

[robbo203]

Again nitpicking.

I refer to the 'state' as the entity within whose boundaries a socialist system would operate (assuming that the world does not, at any one point, make an automatic transfor from the Capitalist mode into a fully Socialist society), rather than as an organ which has huge amounts of power vested in it.


Again Im not nitpicking. The question of the state is absolutely crucial as you must surely realise. You cannot have a state in a classless society and if you do have a state , you dont have a classless society. It is as simple as that. A "socialist" system that still operates with classes and a state is not socialism at all but state capitalism. But I guess here we differ over how we define socialism. I subscribe to the pre-leninist or marxian definition of socialism as being more or less interchangeable with communism. You dont.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Robbo, it is all well and good to talk about Socialism and Communism being interchangeable, but for what you are saying about 'State Capitalism' existing if there is still a state and classes is extremely rigid.

Do you imagine that we can wake up one day and change a society from being one in which both classes and a state exist, to a classless, stateless, society? It is impossible. You underestimate the ability of the Capitalists to sabotage the revolution. As long as the economy is one based on money (and i'm sure you will certainly agree that changing from a monetary to a value economy is not an overnight process), Capitalists have the potential to wield a certain amount of influence, as they can maintain their economic status, even if their accumulated capital is stashed elsewhere. Thus, the state must exist for a certain period to negate any Capitalist counter-revolution and to in fact empower the people by changing the political system to one that is more democratic and localised. We must seize the state in order to eradicate it. Centuries old institutions will not just disappear because, let us say, a few hundred thousand people march through Whitehall with red flags scaring the political class away and taking control of the major industrial institutions.

[robbo203]

Robbo, it is all well and good to talk about Socialism and Communism being interchangeable, but for what you are saying about 'State Capitalism' existing if there is still a state and classes is extremely rigid.

Do you imagine that we can wake up one day and change a society from being one in which both classes and a state exist, to a classless, stateless, society? It is impossible..

No not at all. I think it is quite illogical to claim this. There is nothing in between a class-based society and a classless society. That is about as meaningful as saying you can be a "little bit" pregnant. Or that money is something you can somehow "phase out". No, you either have a money system or you dont. Marx talked of the communist revolution as being the most radical rupture with traditional property relations (Communist Manifesto). In the German Ideology he argued "Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism". The very nature of a communist society itself means that you cannot possibly use past capitalist revolutions as a template for the future communist revolution.

You are making several assumptions which are quite unwarranted. People who caricaturise the communist revolution, as you do, as a state of affairs
in which we will suddenly "wake up one day" and find ourselves in a communist society do not understand the first thing about the most elementary requirement for a successful communist revolution. Communism is not something we will sleepwalk into. Your metaphor of waking up is thus totally inapt. Rather communism is a society that is consciously created by the working class. As he put it "for the success of the cause the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary". You need people to be communist-minded before you can have a successful communist, not afterwards

And you forget something else too - that long before the final culminating act of a communist revolution which necessarily sweeps away the remnants of capitalism in one go, the growth of the communist movement to the point at which it is a position to capture political power will already be exerting an increasingly powerful influence on society. Along with this growth we are likely to see for example an expnansion of the grassroots non commodity sector - socialistic experiments and projects of all kinds that transcend the commodity relationship - as well as an increase in the constraints placed on the capitalist state by the rapidly changing climate of opinion



You underestimate the ability of the Capitalists to sabotage the revolution. As long as the economy is one based on money (and i'm sure you will certainly agree that changing from a monetary to a value economy is not an overnight process), Capitalists have the potential to wield a certain amount of influence, as they can maintain their economic status, even if their accumulated capital is stashed elsewhere. Thus, the state must exist for a certain period to negate any Capitalist counter-revolution and to in fact empower the people by changing the political system to one that is more democratic and localised. We must seize the state in order to eradicate it. Centuries old institutions will not just disappear because, let us say, a few hundred thousand people march through Whitehall with red flags scaring the political class away and taking control of the major industrial institutions.

And you underestimate the ability of the growing non/market anti/statist communist movement of the future - not the weak communist movement that exists at present - to seriously curb and undermine the power of the capitalist class and their state. By the time this movement is in a majority, it will be far too late for the capitalists to do anything about it. The entire social climate of opinion will have been radically transformed. Communist ideas will have seeped everywhere including the armed forces whose members may well have relatives and firends who are communists and dare I say it, even some among the capitalists too will have come to accept the need for a communist revolution

Yes we must democratically seize the state as you say but not to prolong capitalism or the existence of the state but to immeidately get rid of them. The capture of the state constitutes simply the switchover signal which permits the revolutiuionary change to happen in a coordinated manner as well as removing from the capitalists any legal autority to continue to rule. Most of the necessary work will have done a long time before this legal enactment of communism and in readiness for a communist society which we will not "wake up" to but consciously anticipate

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with you; I do not want to see the existence of the state prolonged. I do not want a long class war in which a siege mentality develops and we lose out on the possibility of world revolution.

What I am saying is that, in practice, it will take longer than the immediate period after the revolution to plan the re-organisation of the economy, of the political system and so forth. This cannot be theorised in advance, for it would be premature, a guess at best, to explain the conditions of society after a revolution has begun.

I am mainly referring to the period after Capitalism has been deposed from its positions of power (at the head of politics and in ownership of the major economic/financial assets) but before the class enemy has been defeated and its ability to wield any sort of power, through organs of the state or otherwise, has been negated. That will not happen immediately. We have to plan for that period. I am not a Leninist, but I agree with him that in this period, the very powerful organs of the state must be used to win this war against the Capitalists in as short a time as possible, so as to progress to a fully Socialist society.

[robbo203]

I agree with you; I do not want to see the existence of the state prolonged. I do not want a long class war in which a siege mentality develops and we lose out on the possibility of world revolution.

What I am saying is that, in practice, it will take longer than the immediate period after the revolution to plan the re-organisation of the economy, of the political system and so forth. This cannot be theorised in advance, for it would be premature, a guess at best, to explain the conditions of society after a revolution has begun.

I am mainly referring to the period after Capitalism has been deposed from its positions of power (at the head of politics and in ownership of the major economic/financial assets) but before the class enemy has been defeated and its ability to wield any sort of power, through organs of the state or otherwise, has been negated. That will not happen immediately. We have to plan for that period. I am not a Leninist, but I agree with him that in this period, the very powerful organs of the state must be used to win this war against the Capitalists in as short a time as possible, so as to progress to a fully Socialist society.


But, look, think about what you are saying here. You say you are referring to a period AFTER capitalism has been deposed from its position of power but BEFORE the class enemy has been defeated and its ability to wield power has been negated. To me this just doesnt add up.

If the "class enemy" still exists - the capitalists - that can only mean you still have capitalist relations of production i.e. capitalism. So capitalism has NOT been deposed in that case. It still exists and a revolutiuon still has to be carried out to depose or abolish capitalism.

You are talking about a time before the revolution ,in other words, and not after it. I would add also that if during this time the workers movement were to assume power and to engage in this fashion in a supposed war against the capitalists it would inevitably in my view lead to substitutionism and the rise of a new ruling class.

The only way you can ensure that this does not happen is to plan to immediately get rid of capitalism and its state machine upon democratically capturing the latter. I cannot see any other way

[Comrade Anarchist]

Nationalize-totalitarianism. The state controls but that doesn't mean it shares it with the people and really it has no right to anything b/c it all belongs to the people.

Privatization-Capitalism. When things are private they are run for profit instead of for everyone or for power(nationalized) reasons.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The only way you can ensure that this does not happen is to plan to immediately get rid of capitalism and its state machine upon democratically capturing the latter. I cannot see any other way

Firstly, explain what you mean by 'democratically capturing' the state machine. Are you talking of electoral means? I assume not.

Surely, the instant the state machinery is captured, the Capitalists, those who are left and have maintained their assets, will surely just move abroad and sabotage from there, leading to a Capitalist encirclement much like what happened to the USSR and what is happening to Cuba to this very day. Until they are defeated, the revolution is incomplete.

[robbo203]

Firstly, explain what you mean by 'democratically capturing' the state machine. Are you talking of electoral means? I assume not..

That is certainly possible as Marx and Engels argued


Surely, the instant the state machinery is captured, the Capitalists, those who are left and have maintained their assets, will surely just move abroad and sabotage from there, leading to a Capitalist encirclement much like what happened to the USSR and what is happening to Cuba to this very day. Until they are defeated, the revolution is incomplete ..

The ex-capitalist may move elsewhere but to what purpose? The capture of political power by the communist movement in one part of the world necessarily implies the imminence of this same thing happening elsewhere. It is inconceivable that a genuine communist could grow to any size without it also growing elsewhere. This is the way ideas spread. I suggest the huge majority of ex-capitalists will recognise the writing is on the wall for their system and they will obligingly accept the will of the population. There is little point in resisting the irresitable. Many capitalists I suspect will follow Engel's example and become ardent communists:)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are speaking of the transferral of theory to practice extremely nonchalantly. Many capitalists probably won't become 'ardent' Communists. That is an extremely positivist position to take. If we are planning for sombre reality, we must assume that large sections of the Capitalist class will indeed attack from without, so to speak. We may recognise that it would be better for them to not 'resist the irresistable', but many will not see the merits of a fairer, more egalitarian, classless society, and will cling to their sacks of money.

Moreover, you cannot simply assume that a revolution (I will use the word Socialist, rather than Communist/communist) happening in one area of the world neccessitates successful revolutionary activity in other areas of the world. I mean, it would be nice, and we can probably theorise for such an eventuality, but come on, basing your revolutionary politics on such a premise is likely to lead to disappointment.

[robbo203]

You are speaking of the transferral of theory to practice extremely nonchalantly. Many capitalists probably won't become 'ardent' Communists. That is an extremely positivist position to take. If we are planning for sombre reality, we must assume that large sections of the Capitalist class will indeed attack from without, so to speak. We may recognise that it would be better for them to not 'resist the irresistable', but many will not see the merits of a fairer, more egalitarian, classless society, and will cling to their sacks of money..

Well I am trying with some difficulty to conjure up the alarming image of a sturdy band of somewhat overweight and well fed toffs in pinstripe suits and bowler hats, manning the barricades around the stock exchange in central london, and armed with shotguns more typically trained on grouse than proles. Hhhmmm. Nope. Sorry. Cant really see it happening chum. I think the communist trade unionist Jimmy Reid was much closer to the truth when he remarked of the capitalist class "if we all spat we could drown them".

By the time the communist revolution is around the corner even their flunkeys will be deserting them in their droves. And yes I think some capitalist may well convert to communism just as the Communist Manifesto suggested. The rest will simply accept the inevitable. A few nutters might still resist but - hey! - perhaps if we sat down with them and quaffed a few bottles of champers over smoked salmon and comradely discussion even they might come round to thinking its not so bad after all, this communist mularky


Moreover, you cannot simply assume that a revolution (I will use the word Socialist, rather than Communist/communist) happening in one area of the world neccessitates successful revolutionary activity in other areas of the world. I mean, it would be nice, and we can probably theorise for such an eventuality, but come on, basing your revolutionary politics on such a premise is likely to lead to disappointment.

Thats not quite what I was saying. I said a successful revolution in one part of the world presupposes that there is a significant degree of communist consciousness elsewhere. That I think is very plausible -dont you? And if it is plausible then why are you so resistant to the idea of country after country falling to communism in domino fashion once the process gets going?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

On your last point, I agree that it is a plausible idea, of course. But you seem to be pre-supposing that when planning for a revolution and its aftermath, that we factor in the assumption that there will be a high level of support from other parts of the world. This may not be the case. 1917 bears this out. What I am saying is that, it would be irresponsible to plan for such a scenario, the domino one, which really is the best case. I'm not resistant to the idea, i'm resistant to becoming over-excited and having a theoretical - and indeed, practical - hole to fill if this idea does not transpire to become the reality.

On your first point, i'm not quite sure we are thinking of the same scenario. I'm thinking more of the 1917 'white army' scenario, where Capitalist forces 'from without', so to speak, provide a back up for the retreating Capitalist forces 'from within'.