Socialized or Nationalized?

[Venas Abiertas]

Can someone explain the difference between these two concepts when referring to control of a means of production?

For example, we talk about "socialized medicine" in the UK or Canada, but we say that Venezuela "nationalized" the banks and the oil industry.


I had always understood socialism to be the public ownership of the means of production. What would be the qualitative difference between socialization and nationalization, then, if a country took over its railroads, for example?

If the country was state capitalist we would say that the railroad was "nationalized", right? What would have to happen to be able to say that the railroad was "socialized"? Free train tickets? Or something else?

[Red_Banner]

The thing I don't like about the term "nationalized" is that too many people confuse nation with state.

Nation really means people, ethnicity.

[CoorDaLoor]

i once heard a socialist say that if the means of production is owned by the state and it is worker's state than the means of production are owned by the workers

[Geiseric]

Venezuela didn't nationalize the banking industry. They did partially (17%) nationalize the oil industry. The only countries to nationalize the banking industry are the ones with planned economies, which would be a good thing if they weren't all run by totalitarian scumbags who so far have restored capitalism in Russia and currently are in the process in China and Cuba.

[Sea]

ChinaIn the process? Really? Capitalism in China is signed, sealed and delivered comrade.

[Geiseric]

In the process? Really? Capitalism in China is signed, sealed and delivered comrade.

Not if you define 51% of the economy being publicly owned as "non capitalist". Which you probably don't but I don't really care either way. I'm not going to argue about this because there are a thousand threads already on this topic. Has any capitalist country ever had all of the banks owned by the state though? 50% of the largest economic entities in china are owned fully by the state, which cannot operate them for profit due to basic economic laws.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf <-- there's information about the Chinese economy. Congress itself, the worst enemy of socialism on the planet, hired a panel of economic experts to examine the chinese economy, and they don't even define china as capitalist.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Has any capitalist country ever had all of the banks owned by the state though? 50% of the largest economic entities in china are owned fully by the state, which cannot operate them for profit due to basic economic laws.

70% of the banking sector in italy during the 30's was owned by the state and the state sector composed of 75% of the italian economy(Source: http://www.marxist.com/role-of-state-in-italian-economy-1930s.htm)

51.2% of employees in Belarus are employed by the state and 32 of their banks are owned by the state, with only one private bank in operation.

95% of oil in Saudi Arabia is owned by the state and the majority of their financial institutions are also owned by the state.

The Saudi Arabian economy is managed by a series of 5 year plans, unlike China which forsake 5 year plans for "guidelines"

[Geiseric]

70% of the banking sector in italy during the 30's was owned by the state and the state sector composed of 75% of the italian economy(Source: http://www.marxist.com/role-of-state-in-italian-economy-1930s.htm)

51.2% of employees in Belarus are employed by the state and 32 of their banks are owned by the state, with only one private bank in operation.

95% of oil in Saudi Arabia is owned by the state and the majority of their financial institutions are also owned by the state.

The Saudi Arabian economy is managed by a series of 5 year plans, unlike China which forsake 5 year plans for "guidelines"

sorry you're going to need a better source do dissuade me. Also a state "controlling," still privately owned banks which are run for profit is different than the state "owning," the banks and running the entire economy, allowing capitalism in some areas of the country.

Also this was in your own source:

Of course this is not to be taken literally as the state actually owning directly three quarters of the economy. Trotsky actually refers to Mussolini’s statement in the Revolution Betrayed and explains that there was a difference between Mussolini’s policy and what existed in the Soviet Union. Mussolini’s policy was not aimed at expropriating the capitalist class but saving it in times of crisis.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The difference between nationalization and socialization, I'd say, is the level of actual, practical worker's control over the industries taken over.


Not if you define 51% of the economy being publicly owned as "non capitalist". Which you probably don't but I don't really care either way. I'm not going to argue about this because there are a thousand threads already on this topic. Has any capitalist country ever had all of the banks owned by the state though? 50% of the largest economic entities in china are owned fully by the state, which cannot operate them for profit due to basic economic laws.


State capitalism, comrade.



http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf <-- there's information about the Chinese economy. Congress itself, the worst enemy of socialism on the planet, hired a panel of economic experts to examine the chinese economy, and they don't even define china as capitalist.

That article doesn't say it's not Capitalist, it just says that its transition to a capitalist economy is "incomplete"

[Sea]

70% of the banking sector in italy during the 30's was owned by the state and the state sector composed of 75% of the italian economy(Source: http://www.marxist.com/role-of-state-in-italian-economy-1930s.htm)

51.2% of employees in Belarus are employed by the state and 32 of their banks are owned by the state, with only one private bank in operation.

95% of oil in Saudi Arabia is owned by the state and the majority of their financial institutions are also owned by the state.

The Saudi Arabian economy is managed by a series of 5 year plans, unlike China which forsake 5 year plans for "guidelines"Wow, it looks like we're really winning! :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can someone explain the difference between these two concepts when referring to control of a means of production?

For example, we talk about "socialized medicine" in the UK or Canada, but we say that Venezuela "nationalized" the banks and the oil industry.Good question. I'm not certain but I think the main difference would be that "Nationalisation" could mean that the state takes over running a service no matter how they decide to handle it (so "nationalizing" transportation might mean that people still pay market rates for train tickets but the government runs it, or the government could run it as a public transportation system and lower tickets rates by subsidizing the costs more through public fund. Socialization in this example instead might imply that it is a universal service: public money funds it, the state administers it, and everyone gets access to it.


In either case, I think it's implied that it's state agencies and burocrats who make the decisions and have effective control over the nationalized industry.



i once heard a socialist say that if the means of production is owned by the state and it is worker's state than the means of production are owned by the workersI don't hold this view but many Socialists do. Really it depends of how people define a "worker's state" that would be the important factor here. I think in examples like Cuba (despite whatever positive reforms or protections they may or may not have) the decisions and control are not being made directly by groups of workers - they have some indirect influence which can "advise" the government but there's no binding power and so it's really run by beurocrats. There's even been some talk about creating worker committees and turing running of the day to day operations over to workers in Cuba, but this too would be workers only managing economic systems they have no overall direct control over.

I think we need to get away from the ideas of Nationalization or Socialisation in the abstract being somehow connected to socialism; the class aspect of the question is totally obsured when it's looked at this way. To me the question of the means of production is less a question of "how" it's arranged and more of a question of who really has power over it and effective control. The UK, for example, had as much nationalized industry at one point as some so-called worker states.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not if you define 51% of the economy being publicly owned as "non capitalist". Which you probably don't but I don't really care either way. I'm not going to argue about this because there are a thousand threads already on this topic. Has any capitalist country ever had all of the banks owned by the state though? 50% of the largest economic entities in china are owned fully by the state, which cannot operate them for profit due to basic economic laws.

51.2% of Belarusians are employed by state-controlled companies, 47.4% are employed by private companies (of which 5.7% are partially foreign-owned), and 1.4% are employed by foreign companies. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20071011152228/http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/indicators/labor.php

It's a beyond ridiculous assertion that state ownership by a bourgeois state cannot operate on profits "due to basic economic laws." That's an unsubstantiated and ridiculous notion. The type of legalistic ownership does not change how a corporation operates in practice. Of course they generate profits, claiming otherwise is a denial of reality -- it's delusional.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf <-- there's information about the Chinese economy. Congress itself, the worst enemy of socialism on the planet, hired a panel of economic experts to examine the chinese economy, and they don't even define china as capitalist.

It may surprise you to hear that Congress' experts are not Marxists and do not apply Marxist analysis and consequently preoccupy themselves with the phenomenal characteristics of political and economic systems (stemming from their idealist paradigm). This paradigm -- one they share with you, incidentally -- leads people to conclude that Venezuela has an economic system different from Colombia, and Saudi Arabia has a different economic system from Syria, and so forth, while in reality they all have variations of the capitalist mode of production.
Also this document does not mention capitalism once, outside of footnotes (three times, in which it cites sources claiming China is state-capitalist). It only mentions socialism in quotation marks, quoting Chinese official policy.

Lastly, your own source, citing reality, destroys your notion that state-owned enterprises somehow, for not apparent reason ("basic economic laws" what?), cannot make profits.


most Chinese savings during
this period were generated by the profits of SOEs, which were used by the central government for
domestic investment.

many firms cut corners in order to maximize
profits.

Again, it's delusional to think China has anything remotely to do with socialism. Try to apply Marxist analysis for once.