Seize BP?

[¿Que?]

http://www.seizebp.org/

What's up with this? Is it productive to demand that the government...that is the State, seize BP assets? I don't too much understand their justification, but I would assume that in a revolutionary situation, you'd have the proletariat seize all corporate assets, although not necessarily the State. But is it a good step forward? Sort of to increase the level of consciousness among people?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

The campaign is good stuff.

It is introducing the conception of expropriation, usually regarded as the blackest of vices in American politics, as something that can be positive.

That this proposed seizure is done by the State and not the proletariat is irrelevant. Making American people receptive to the concept of seizure of corporate assets is more important than theoretical purity.

[RED DAVE]

Making American people receptive to the concept of seizure of corporate assets is more important than theoretical purity.It's not a matter of theoretical purity. It's a matter of theoretical clarity. To demand that the government take over BP and its assets, as you said, legitimatizes the notion of seizure. Should this in rfact happen, as when the British government took over the coal mines in the late 1940s, this could, but would not necessarily, raise the struggle to a higher level.

RED DAVE

[bricolage]

Should this in rfact happen, as when the British government took over the coal mines in the late 1940s,

The same British government that would in the 1980s destroy mining communities and launch the perhaps the most naked attempt of class war against the labour movement seen in UK history.

[Unis]

The same British government that would in the 1980s destroy mining communities and launch the perhaps the most naked attempt of class war against the labour movement seen in UK history.
A different British government, actually. ;) Which I think is pretty important.

[FreeFocus]

To hell with seizing BP - destroy BP.

Let me note, I do support seizing its assets and using them for the benefit of victims of BP's environmental crime - the environment included.

[Rusty Shackleford]

boycotting BP wont do shit, Seize their motherfucking assets. it will put BP's loss in money to better use like fixing its own problem if we use their money to fix it.

[Buffalo Souljah]

BP is good for the world. BP is loveable. BP loves you.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41bbm3jOppL.jpg

[Paid for by British Petroleum (http://www.democracynow.org/)]

[bricolage]

A different British government, actually. ;) Which I think is pretty important.

Yeah true but the same British state is what I meant.
It's not just about 'evil Thatcher'.

[Unis]

Yeah true but the same British state is what I meant.
It's not just about 'evil Thatcher'.
A very different British State. Put it into some historical perspective, and remember the British government which nationalised all the industries were, at least nominally, left wing.

When it comes to the deterioration of Britain, it's mostly about 'evil Thatcher'.

[bricolage]

When it comes to the deterioration of Britain, it's mostly about 'evil Thatcher'.

Thatcher intensified the process sure but in a lot of ways she borrowed ideas and carried on things proposed by people like Wilson when he was PM.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes. Some of us remember Britain before Thatcher. You know what? It wasn't a golden land where we all skipped happily in fields of Socialist-Realist milk and bambis.

What does 'nominally left wing' mean Unis? The Welfare State was invented by the Conservatives in the 1920s because it was cheaper for British capitalism to centralise health-care. The Thatcher government was in many ways a continuation of the Wilson/Callaghan Government before it, which in turn continued the policies o the Heath Government. The Blair Government of 1997-2007 (and the Brown Government of 2007-2010) was 'nominally left wing' and launched 4 wars that I remember, while presiding over massive attacks on the social wage and mortgaging the future for the population it was supposed to be working for, for short-term gain. So, I reject the notion that it was 'all about Thatcher'. Not that I don't think she was an evil and digusting person, but if she hadn't done it some other hatchet-man (or woman) would have.

[Unis]

Yes. Some of us remember Britain before Thatcher. You know what? It wasn't a golden land where we all skipped happily in fields of Socialist-Realist milk and bambis.

What does 'nominally left wing' mean Unis? The Welfare State was invented by the Conservatives in the 1920s because it was cheaper for British capitalism to centralise health-care. The Thatcher government was in many ways a continuation of the Wilson/Callaghan Government before it, which in turn continued the policies o the Heath Government. The Blair Government of 1997-2007 (and the Brown Government of 2007-2010) was 'nominally left wing' and launched 4 wars that I remember, while presiding over massive attacks on the social wage and mortgaging the future for the population it was supposed to be working for, for short-term gain. So, I reject the notion that it was 'all about Thatcher'. Not that I don't think she was an evil and digusting person, but if she hadn't done it some other hatchet-man (or woman) would have.

Some of us do, me included. I know it wasn't at all socialist, but there was a stronger sense of social responsibility and community - it wasn't just Thacher's economic policies, her social ones helped fuel a long period (Which hasn't ended, imho) of selfishness which doesn't aid anyone.

The NHS wasn't created by the conservatives, and frankly I value that quite a lot.

You can't really compare Blair's 'left wing' government with Attlee's. While I don't agree with Attlee on lots of things, I do think he was left wing at heart. Blair was as much a Thatcherite as thatcher herself, who just carried on her policies.

Sorry if this all comes across as a little muddled, I'm half asleep and will doubtlessly look back in horror at it in the morning. :)

[Ocean Seal]

Nationalization of a large company especially an irresponsible one like BP is always a good thing as opposed to say bailing it out.

[Unis]

Nationalization of a large company especially an irresponsible one like BP is always a good thing as opposed to say bailing it out.
They should just turn it into a cooperative and see how things run. I bet it would smooth most of the bumps out.

[Ocean Seal]

They should just turn it into a cooperative and see how things run. I bet it would smooth most of the bumps out.
Unfortunately that is far less feasible than nationalization as it requires the shareholders to give up their shares. That would be very unlikely.

[Klaatu]

A Brief History of BP
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1993361,00.html

An excerpt


Needless to say, many Iranians were not happy with AIOC's presence. In 1951, the country's democratically elected premier,
Mohammed Mossadegh, decided to nationalize its holdings. The takeover plunged the world into crisis — an essential pipeline
was shut off as the U.K. and the U.S. boycotted Iran and blocked other European technicians from replacing the British ones
who had been fired. TIME made Mossadegh Man of the Year in 1951, depicting him, somewhat uncharitably, as a "strange
old wizard" leading a hapless, faraway nation into the clutches of Communists. Ultimately, U.S. fears of Soviet influence —
and the British desire to regain their oil — led to a joint CIA and British intelligence operation known as "Operation Ajax."
It toppled Mossadegh in a carefully orchestrated 1953 coup and eventually handed the country back to the pro-Western Shah,
who assumed autocratic powers.
Which led to the 1979 revolution, which led to... present-day problems. BP was involved in this.

Interfere in another country's affairs, and it is inevitable that greater problems will happen at some point.
Can we leave Iran alone for once?