why do leftists like nationalised industries?

[ed miliband]

bit of a stupid question, but something i've never quite understood - not just social democrats, but trotskyists and so on.

i understand that privatisation is used to undercut gains, cut jobs and and pay, but as it goes, supposing, say, the royal mail could be run privately without a change in pay or conditions (a fantasy, of course) i don't see the reason for supporting state ownership over private ownership. or, for example, self-professed revolutionaries calling for the renationalisation of the british rail network - i can see why labour supporters or "democratic socialists" might do so, but surely even if you believe in nationalisation as part of the revolutionary process for whatever reason, it isn't this state you want to be doing the nationalisation but a, uh, "revolutionary workers state" or whatever?

i mean, in a way i know the answer, or at least i have my own perspective on it. but i'm interested in what others have to say - including those who see state ownership as preferable to private. i also wonder whether there's something generational about it: i grew up post-thatcher, not really knowing nationalisation, so when i hear older leftists banging on about renationalise this or that, i can't help but think how horribly out of touch they are (no disrespect to the older comrades who aren't like this :) ).

[Sabot Cat]

I think it goes back to the demands of Marx in the Communist Manifesto in which he advocates that very thing for a workers' state, but that caveat is oft forgotten. I might support nationalization under a bourgeois state if it makes it easier to seize power when the industries are consolidated. For instance, if the government of the People's Republic of China were overthrown by the Chinese proletariat, the revolutionaries could then marshal most of the state-owned enterprises and national banks into their hands through their new control of the state apparatus; if the government of the United States were overthrown by the American proletariat, the industrialists and capitalists would still have sufficient autonomy and transience to flee, wreck the revolutionary economy, or wage war. At least, that's the argument I could see being made for it. I'm not entirely decided on this matter.

[Per Levy]

I might support nationalization under a bourgeois state if it makes it easier to seize power when the industries are consolidated. For instance, if the government of the People's Republic of China were overthrown by the Chinese proletariat, the revolutionaries could then marshal most of the state-owned enterprises and national banks into their hands through their new control of the state apparatus

wasnt it marx that said "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state" after the expierence of the paris commune? besides almost all nationalized industries are run by state owned companies that just wouldnt fall into the hands of the proles even if they could take over the state.


if the government of the United States were overthrown by the American proletariat, the industrialists and capitalists would still have sufficient autonomy and transience to flee, wreck the revolutionary economy, or wage war. At least, that's the argument I could see being made for it. I'm not entirely decided on this matter.

id think if there was a revolution in the usa one of the first things would be that the proles take over their workspaces, that is part of the revolution.

@ed: it probally boils down to that some dead old russians said so therefor its the ultimate truth or something.

[Sabot Cat]

wasnt it marx that said "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state" after the expierence of the paris commune? besides almost all nationalized industries are run by state owned companies that just would fall into the hands of the proles even if they could take over the state.

I think there are some operational differences between a state capitalist society (as in the PRC) and a private capitalist society (as in 19th century France), and I believe that the overarching administration of the assets of the former could make it much easier to transition to the new society after the revolution due to pre-existing organization. Furthermore, Marx died before the rise of the first modern state capitalist state, so I don't think his words are relevant in this situation.



id think if there was a revolution in the usa one of the first things would be that the proles take over their workspaces, that is part of the revolution.


Indeed, and I think the way to do this is through a general strike.

[ed miliband]

I think there are some operational differences between a state capitalist society (as in the PRC) and a private capitalist society (as in 19th century France), and I believe that the overarching administration of the assets of the former would make it much easier to transition to the new society after the revolution due to pre-existing organization. Marx died before the rise of the first modern state capitalist state, so I don't think his words are relevant in regards to one.


this opens up another question though - can state capitalist theory trots defend nationalisation in britain for example, or is it contradictory? it would mean siding with one form of capitalism over another, surely in contradiction of "neither washington nor moscow but international socialism".

[Sabot Cat]

this opens up another question though - can state capitalist theory trots defend nationalisation in britain for example, or is it contradictory? it would mean siding with one form of capitalism over another, surely in contradiction of "neither washington nor moscow but international socialism".

I think it's the difference between having your targets all spread out in a field, or having them corralled into a corner.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not just leftists. Quite a few people in the UK are in favour of nationalisation (at least according to this YouGov poll (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/)), probably because they've experienced a significant degradation of service as privatisation has advanced.

I guess the point is that you can't have privatisation without it negatively impacting on workers both in terms of production and consumption. While I will admit that renationalisation is looking very much unlikely at this point, I have to wonder how sustainable this privatisation craze really is in the long term. There's only so much they can sell off before they run out. Then what? Workers have objectively worse services and to top it all are less healthy and more likely to have substandard education, making them less productive which hurts profits (for some segments of the capital classes, at least?).

Seems bonkers to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Fourth Internationalist]

[...]but surely even if you believe in nationalisation as part of the revolutionary process for whatever reason, it isn't this state you want to be doing the nationalisation but a, uh, "revolutionary workers state" or whatever?

Yes, we do want the revolutionary workers' state to nationalize property. But nationalization within the context of the bourgeois state is still progressive as a gain for workers (albeit one turned against them) for reasons that you mentioned and more.


wasnt it marx that said "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state" after the expierence of the paris commune?

Luckily for us, the means of production are not the equivalent to the ready-made bourgeois state, regardless of whether or not they are nationalized.


this opens up another question though - can state capitalist theory trots defend nationalisation in britain for example, or is it contradictory? it would mean siding with one form of capitalism over another, surely in contradiction of "neither washington nor moscow but international socialism".

Defending progressive measures within the context of capitalism is not siding with one form of capitalism against another.

~~~

"Theoretically, to be sure, it is possible to conceive a situation in which the bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes itself a stock company which, by means of its state, administers the whole national economy. The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral “state capitalism”, this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes – that is, competition among different capitals – but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist – the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution. - Trotsky in The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 9 "Social Relations in the Soviet Union" '1. State Capitalism' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

Trotsky here is discussing the idea of the Soviet Union as a state capitalist society rather than a degenerated workers' state. He believed that nationalization of the whole economy was impossible under capitalism because it would provide such an easy basis for social revolution. He was, however, wrong about the idea that it could never exist because, as we know, state capitalism did emerge in the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, constituted by the Great Purges, during the time this book was written. The basis it provided for social revolution was why the Soviet Union could not last long as state capitalist, hence the turn towards traditional capitalism in the 1990's.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution." (Engels)

[Comrade Jacob]

Leftists* only want the state to own the means of production (nationalize them) if the state in question is socialist and will put the surplus-value to furthering the revolution and advancing the population's human-development. If not it is just state-capitalism.




*Minus anarchists etc obviously because they don't want a state.

[Brotto Rühle]

"State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution." (Engels)

Whew, I almost fainted from all the context of this ancient quote. Come on, State-Ownership is fetishized by social democrats as this mythical negation of capitalism, simply because the "bourgeoisie" lose the juridical claim to their tools of exploitation, to a different group; the state. The juridical notion of private ownership prevails here, not the Marxian. No attempt is made to acknowledge the continuation of exploitation, or anything else.

[ed miliband]

i think the experience of the 20th century almost globally show that nationalisation does nothing to alter the social relations of capitalist society. somebody above claims i mentioned progressive elements of nationalisation in this thread - where? i don't think there are any.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Nationalization doesn't alter capitalist social relations if it's merely sectoral, but wholesale implementation doesn't alter them if labour and capital markets continue to exist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

somebody above claims i mentioned progressive elements of nationalisation in this thread - where? i don't think there are any.
Given that you said this...

i understand that privatisation is used to undercut gains, cut jobs and and pay,
... I assumed you knew a few benefits that existed as a result of preserving nationalization. If privatization does those things, according to you, wouldn't it be a greater gain to have and preserve nationalized industries and prevent privatization?

[Die Neue Zeit]

... I assumed you knew a few benefits that existed as a result of preserving nationalization. If privatization does those things, according to you, wouldn't it be a greater gain to have and preserve the nationalized industries, then?

On the level of reform struggles, I'm afraid it's still worthless to simply "have and preserve the nationalized industries." Think bigger.

[ed miliband]

Given that you said this...

... I assumed you knew a few benefits that existed as a result of preserving nationalization. If privatization does those things, according to you, wouldn't it be a greater gain to have and preserve the nationalized industries, then?

i don't think those things are inherent to nationalisation though, my point was as a principle i wouldn't distinguish between a private or state owned postal system - the latter is not any more progressive than the former - but the privatisation of the royal mail will of course mean an attack on working conditions. they'll be - and are - attacked when it's state owned too, though.

[La Guaneña]

The struggle for nationalization can be used to gain momentum for demands that can only be reached out of capitalist society, raising discussions about who deserves to use what is produced by the company in question.

For example, in Brasil most of our technological research happens inside the University, and there is a big struggle currently against private management of the University Hospitals and private-public deals in the area of research.

Not only it is important to put on pressure to mantain these things as state-owned, but to pressure for the whole benefit of this institution to be enjoyed by society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

i don't think those things are inherent to nationalisation though, my point was as a principle i wouldn't distinguish between a private or state owned postal system - the latter is not any more progressive than the former - but the privatisation of the royal mail will of course mean an attack on working conditions. they'll be - and are - attacked when it's state owned too, though.

No one here is arguing that nationalized industry doesn't attack working conditions, doesn't exploit workers, nor that it is progressive in terms of class content simply because it is nationalized.

If they both are equally not gains for the working class, then why did you mention some of the negative effects of privatization in your other post? As you said, privatization is used to undercut some benefits that workers would otherwise receive if they worked in nationalized industry.

[ed miliband]

No one here is arguing that nationalized industry doesn't attack working conditions, doesn't exploit workers, nor that it is progressive in terms of class content simply because it is nationalized.

If they both are equally not gains for the working class, then why did you mention some of the negative effects of privatization in your other post? As you said, privatization is used to undercut some benefits that workers would otherwise receive if they worked in nationalized industry.

again - i don't think such benefits are intrinsic, inherent to nationalised industries; the state isn't a benevolent employer that endows on its workers great benefits that nasty private capitalists are just itching to take away.

[Devrim]

No one here is arguing that nationalized industry doesn't attack working conditions, doesn't exploit workers, nor that it is progressive in terms of class content simply because it is nationalized.

If they both are equally not gains for the working class, then why did you mention some of the negative effects of privatization in your other post? As you said, privatization is used to undercut some benefits that workers would otherwise receive if they worked in nationalized industry.

But nationalisation has also been used to attack working conditions. A good recent example of this would be the nationalisation of RBS in the UK. What I think happens is that in this period restructuring whether nationalisation or privatisation is used to attack conditions and living standards. It is just that there are many more privatisations than nationalisations today.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

again - i don't think such benefits are intrinsic, inherent to nationalised industries; the state isn't a benevolent employer that endows on its workers great benefits that nasty private capitalists are just itching to take away.

I guess that, from the POV of social democrats/old labour types, it is the potential benefits of nationalisation that marry with their somewhat utopian/idealistic outlook.

Privatised industry must always be geared to profit, both in its atomised, sectoral manifestation, and in the wider, general viewpoint of 'industry' or 'business'. If an atomised unit of capital does not operate on a for-profit basis, then it will logically die. The same logic if we expand this to capitalist production as a whole; it can only be for-profit.

Nationalised industry is not quite bound by the same conditions, according to social democratic logic. I believe (correct me if i'm wrong), that the logic underlying the pro-nationalisation POV is that if industry is dominated by those with a public service ethos, then they will be able to use such an ethos (in contrast to the pro-profit ethos of private capital) to make incremental reforms by eating into profit margins.

The mistake here is two-fold:

1) According to marxian theory, whilst private industry operates on a for-profit basis, it does not operate on a profit-maximising basis. Capital, as we know, is pretty flexible and innovative in finding ways to re-formulate itself in order to survive. Profit-maximisation, if generalised across the production process, would lead to a revolution in a heartbeat. Further, profit-maximisation does not always lead to the best rate of capital accumulation; capital accumulation is a long-run process, and so it is this (capital accumulation) that is the strategic aim of capital, not profit maximisation. The upshot of this is that, sometimes, gains can be made (in terms of reforms) even when industry is privatised.

2) Assuming that it is the public service ethos of the actors of the political state that leads to the potential for reforms to be made under nationalisation. This is a great mean outlook, it understands nothing of the economic and financial pressures of the capitalist system. In the long-run, even nationalised industry has to operate 'efficiently' - i.e. on a growth basis - it must produce a 'bottom line', even if this is recognised by a word other than 'profit'.

Ultimately, though, it's too simplistic to just view this debate in terms of the binary 'private v nationalised' industry outlook. Ultimately, private industry can come under the pressures of the democratic process; politicians can and do exert some pressure on private industries that lead to incremental gains for workers (sometimes, and always temporarily, though), and nationalised industries can lead to losses for workers, too, particularly when inefficiency leads to losses on the consumer side for workers.

You're right, Ed, that the idea of nationalisation is a bogus one; there isn't a continuum from private, to nationalised, to democratic control of the MoP, to the abolition of capital. Rather, I think it's easier to view the capitalist production process as a tangled web of economic, social and political cause and effect, within which private production and national production are just methods of production upon which capital can call, depending on social and economic circumstances at the time.

[ed miliband]

i think to support state ownership over private ownership as more progressive, you must believe that the bourgeois state is in some way neutral, or at least more neutral than private capital.

from the piece on the state by the group la guerre sociale (i like this piece but i have issues with the group's history as a whole):


For the Left, the State is always preferable to private capital, since it can influence the mechanisms of the State more easily than those of the private economy. Thus it will denounce the "bosses stranglehold" in this or that sector, calling for the State alone to assume responsibility. It only reproaches the State for keeping out of things. For example, the Stalinist Ellenstein recognises the growing power of the State, but concludes that it must be democratised (4). Since the State has penetrated the whole of society, and thus social struggles also unfold within its bosom, he deduces that the State is no longer an apparatus to be fought against but rather a place to be occupied. It is no longer "the instrument of the ruling class" but a social space where, at all costs, we must intervene.

i would say this is not in keeping with marx or even lenin.

[Zukunftsmusik]

... I assumed you knew a few benefits that existed as a result of preserving nationalization. If privatization does those things, according to you, wouldn't it be a greater gain to have and preserve nationalized industries and prevent privatization?

There's a difference between opposing privatisation because of its effects on jobs, working conditions etc. (effects that nationalisation can have too, as pointed out already) and supporting nationalisation as a "progressive" aim.

[Ocean Seal]

Typically if you've lived in the Third World you know the differences between nationalized and internationally owned industries, but I'm sure you've heard that answer before.

[Fourth Internationalist]

again - i don't think such benefits are intrinsic, inherent to nationalised industries;

Of course, the benefits for workers isn't an eternal law of the world. I think anyone can understand that. But for example, advocating nationalization can be used to promote socialism, in the way Coluna Prestes described. It could be the basis of a few transitional demands. The benefits, also, include more opportunities.


the state isn't a benevolent employer that endows on its workers great benefits that nasty private capitalists are just itching to take away.


This is not what anyone was arguing, and no sane or honest person could think this is at all what I am arguing.


But nationalisation has also been used to attack working conditions. A good recent example of this would be the nationalisation of RBS in the UK. What I think happens is that in this period restructuring whether nationalisation or privatisation is used to attack conditions and living standards. It is just that there are many more privatisations than nationalisations today.

I'm sure it probably has been used to benefit the capitalists. Of course it has. Nearly everything done by the bourgeois state is done for some reason to protect their interests, for example, nationalizing an industry to save it. I'm not familiar with that case you mentioned, though, so I cannot comment on it.


i think to support state ownership over private ownership as more progressive, you must believe that the bourgeois state is in some way neutral, or at least more neutral than private capital.
How? Recognizing working-class gains within capitalism, even gains through the state, don't mean the state is any less bourgeois or imperialist than it is.


There's a difference between opposing privatisation because of its effects on jobs, working conditions etc. (effects that nationalisation can have too, as pointed out already) and supporting nationalisation as a "progressive" aim.

I think 'support' is a strong word for what I mean. While I certainly think a nationalized economy can provide a social basis for social revolution, it isn't a 'step' to be taken within the journey to socialism. It's more preservation than support for where it exists, except when it is called for as a transitional demand.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How? Recognizing working-class gains within capitalism, even gains through the state, don't mean the state is any less bourgeois or imperialist than it is.

But this line of argument is predicated on the assumption that nationalised industry is more likely to bring lasting gains to workers under capitalism. I would say that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is not the case.

Gains can be made under privatised industry and class solidarity can be pacified by a situation of generalised state ownership of industry. I don't think there is any definitive evidence, nor a persuasive theory, that demonstrates worker gains under capitalism are more likely in a situation of generalised national ownership of industry rather than private ownership.

[Devrim]

I'm sure it probably has been used to benefit the capitalists. Of course it has. Nearly everything done by the bourgeois state is done for some reason to protect their interests, for example, nationalizing an industry to save it. I'm not familiar with that case you mentioned, though, so I cannot comment on it.

Of course you are right. It was done to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie. When we had mass nationalisations in Europe after the war that was done to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie too.

Details of job losses and the nationalised RBS can be found here:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2085566/RBS-cuts-3-500-investment-banking-jobs-drive-reduce-risk-taxpayers.html
I just found this on a search. I am not endorsing this article in anyway.

Devrim

[Zukunftsmusik]

I think 'support' is a strong word

I don't think it is, looking from posts in this thread

[Devrim]

Typically if you've lived in the Third World you know the differences between nationalized and internationally owned industries, but I'm sure you've heard that answer before.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by the 'third world', but I imagine I have lived in what you would refer to as such. In general jobs in big international companies tend to be better than the same jobs in small local companies. It might not fit in with your ideology. Nevertheless, it is true.

Devrim

[Brotto Rühle]

Nationalization isn't a "transitional demand", and using it as such does nothing but confuse socialism with state capitalism/social democracy.

[ed miliband]

Of course, the benefits for workers isn't an eternal law of the world. I think anyone can understand that. But for example, advocating nationalization can be used to promote socialism, in the way Coluna Prestes described. It could be the basis of a few transitional demands. The benefits, also, include more opportunities.

i don't see how the bourgeois state nationalising industries can be an argument for socialism - to believe this is the case, you must have a very different understanding of what socialism is to me.

what "opportunities" are there more of?


This is not what anyone was arguing, and no sane or honest person could think this is at all what I am arguing.

i believe it is implied, though. certainly i made that a little hyperbolic, but i can't see what these "benefits" of nationalised industry are, and i don't think you've really argued for their existence very well.

again - privatisation is used to cut pay, jobs, and so on, as is to be expected when a company or industry is restructured - either by the state or by private capital. you take these conditions, rate of pay, etc. to be "benefits" of nationalised industry. i don't understand how you've arrived at this position.


How? Recognizing working-class gains within capitalism, even gains through the state, don't mean the state is any less bourgeois or imperialist than it is.

because to believe that nationalisation is a "working class gain" surely implies you think their is something preferable to state ownership over private - and why?

[Fourth Internationalist]

(if you reply to this, please keep posts short and to the point, I don't have time to respond to 5 people posting long posts)


But this line of argument is predicated on the assumption that nationalised industry is more likely to bring lasting gains to workers under capitalism. I would say that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is not the case.

Gains can be made under privatised industry and class solidarity can be pacified by a situation of generalised state ownership of industry. I don't think there is any definitive evidence, nor a persuasive theory, that demonstrates worker gains under capitalism are more likely in a situation of generalised national ownership of industry rather than private ownership.

Are you opposed to the thought that, as I quoted Trotsky about, talking about how dangerous a nationalized economy is to the bourgeoisie, given that it provides a basis for social revolution?


Of course you are right. It was done to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie. When we had mass nationalisations in Europe after the war that was done to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie too.

Details of job losses and the nationalised RBS can be found here:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2085566/RBS-cuts-3-500-investment-banking-jobs-drive-reduce-risk-taxpayers.html
I just found this on a search. I am not endorsing this article in anyway.

Devrim

I think that was more a result of decisions by the bank later on than the effect of partial-nationalization. Though, of course, an eternal law stating that nationalization must be always used to protect jobs or provide higher wages compared to private sector jobs, doesn't exist.

I don't think it is, looking from posts in this thread

I've finished the rest of my post on it. I was editing it.


Nationalization isn't a "transitional demand", and using it as such does nothing but confuse socialism with state capitalism/social democracy.

Transitional programs are never programs for socialism/maximum programs.


i don't see how the bourgeois state nationalising industries can be an argument for socialism - to believe this is the case, you must have a very different understanding of what socialism is to me.

what "opportunities" are there more of?

I did not say that nationalizing is socialism. I referenced a post by Coluna Prestes that is relevent to what I say.


i believe it is implied, though. certainly i made that a little hyperbolic, but i can't see what these "benefits" of nationalised industry are, and i don't think you've really argued for their existence very well.

again - privatisation is used to cut pay, jobs, and so on, as is to be expected when a company or industry is restructured - either by the state or by private capital. you take these conditions, rate of pay, etc. to be "benefits" of nationalised industry. i don't understand how you've arrived at this position.

because to believe that nationalisation is a "working class gain" surely implies you think their is something preferable to state ownership over private - and why?

The biggest benefit applies to nationalized property more than to indivuidual nationalized indutries, whose benefits can vary. Nationalized capitalist economies, such as the Soviet Union, create political instability. Competition between bureaucrats of the same state occur in the economy. Trotsky believed this was such a temptation for social revolution that it could not exist. To post waht I said earlier:

"Theoretically, to be sure, it is possible to conceive a situation in which the bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes itself a stock company which, by means of its state, administers the whole national economy. The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral “state capitalism”, this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes – that is, competition among different capitals – but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist – the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution. - Trotsky in The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 9 "Social Relations in the Soviet Union" '1. State Capitalism' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

[adipocere]

There is of course the concept that not everything, even within a capitalist society needs to be run at a profit, nor even needs to break even. The idea of utilities, which are goods and services that people require to function in society ie: roads, water, sewage, power, mail, telephone etc, could be run from tax payer money at a deficit - much like the military, which is of course kept publicly funded because it exclusively serves wealth and cannot operate itself at a profit (without invading banks or Buckingham Palace).

In the US for instance the government is almost entirely privatized. The ruling class believe that the government is only responsible for seeing that goods and services are provided, not that the government provides them. It's sort of a question of what do you expect your governments function to be? Some would think a government is there to work on behalf of ordinary people, others see government as a function of preserving and creating private wealth which will then trickle down to the unwashed masses.

You don't need to even be a "leftist" to understand the benefits of nationalized or public industries. There has just been 30 years of politics and PR devoted to convincing you that public or national industry is "bad"

Take healthcare for instance. In the US it's a nightmare of waste, extortion, price gouging, unnecessary procedures, inefficiency, lack of access and ultimately poor outcomes for the vast majority of people. That's a highly developed privatized industry. In Nigeria, the oil production is at the very low end of private industry. You have mercenaries riding gunboats, killing locals, oil spills, hundreds of square miles of destroyed environment, resulting poverty, and a very rich and ruthlessly corrupt ruling class.

From that perspective, the royal mail doesn't seem like a big deal. It's mail and it's pretty straight forward in that there is really no ethical aspect of carrying letters nor is there much profit unless the public continues to subsidize the mail - in which some great entrepreneur can swoop in and bust up the labor and start skimming off the top. That is what is motivating the privatization of the public school system in the US anyway.

[ed miliband]

You don't need to even be a "leftist" to understand the benefits of nationalized or public industries. There has just been 30 years of politics and PR devoted to convincing you that public or national industry is "bad".

i'm a communist and as such, not particularly interested in whether capitalist society can be managed better with nationalised industry, which is essentially what you are arguing for.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The caveat the CWI uses is to 'nationalise under democratic workers' control'. There is a wide working class demand for renationalisation of key industries and a prevention/reversal of nationalisation of the likes of the NHS and education etc but it can't be done simply by switching out Tsarist eagle for the Red Star or along the lines of the post-war nationalisation of the coal industry in Britain that saw the old coal barons maintaining their positions of power by being brought onto the state coal board or, as someone mentioned, the nationalisation of RBS which was simply brought in to ensure that the bourgeoisie could get their act together and consolidate their holdings. There's a popular call for the NHS to be run not by profit-driven trusts but by the doctors and nurses who actually work in hospitals etc which can be logically extended to other key industries and leftist can use such slogans to drive for future revolutionary goals.

I understand that some folks see it as simply managing capital; at best a wide form of co-operatives and at worst simply a veil for the bourgeoisie to maintain their position of privilege. Personally I see there being a positive aspect to giving working people the confidence to utilise their political power and drive for more control over their lives and such confidence can only engender working class organisation and class struggle even if ultimately it's simply another mutation of capitalist exploitation. Nationalisation under democratic worker's control isn't the end goal but it's something tangible to organise around, essentially.

[La Guaneña]

Typically if you've lived in the Third World you know the differences between nationalized and internationally owned industries, but I'm sure you've heard that answer before.

I guess the debate should also cover this aspect. Us, in Africa, Latin America and Asia face a different situation when discussion nationalization. What did the creation of Petrobras mean for Brasil in the 50s?

Does anybody here actually believe that there is no difference between having a state run PDVSA and Standard Oil taking care of the hole digging? For fucks sake, people.

[adipocere]

i'm a communist and as such, not particularly interested in whether capitalist society can be managed better with nationalised industry, which is essentially what you are arguing for.
Well with that perspective, why not anarchism or utopian capitalism? If you want a mental shortcut to stateless utopia than don't ask disingenuous questions.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I tend to agree with Ed that state ownership is oversold among Leftists. State capital can just be used to enrich well connected bureaucrats, defend the state, and to defend capital.

I guess it might help to look at nationalizations in history as case studies and see if any of them might justify the preference for state-owned industry. It seems that it shows that on some level state ownership often does help with labor issues or with the distribution of production. It also shows that nationalized industries are also used to placate the practical demands for workers until they are privatized again anyways.

A good example is Pemex in Mexico. It was nationalized as a consequence of the Mexican revolution (albeit a few decades later) by Leftwing social democrat (and the guy who gave asylum to Leon Trotsky) Lazaro Cardenas. It was seen as a triumph of the left wing of the revolution, as it gave the Mexican people some level of sovereignty through their elected officials - at least in theory - and it led to cash from the most profitable industry flowing down through all levels of the economy. Oil was used to modernize the state and spend money on social services which had been neglected by the Mexican government since independence. It was also used to subsidize local petroleum costs, making gas accessible to everyday people. These benefits shouldn't be overlooked, and they still exist. Pemex functions as a sort of piggy bank for the Mexican state to pay for social services without having to tax the rich so much.

Of course its nationalization is still highly problematic. Cardenas chose a rightwinger to succeed him to placate conservative Mexican nationalists in the party, so the "great" victory for the left of Mexico was eroded by the fact that social democratic control of the ruling party could not be assured. The state became even more oppressive and militarized during the latter half of the 20th century. It also to a large part continued to ignore much of the agrarian peasant base of the economy after redistributing the land (one of the other seminal decisions of the revolutionary government). Mexican peasants continued to live and work in a state of poverty, just with their own name to the land. Thus even if it was "nationalized" it was in no way "democratic".

Its also become vulnerable to privatization. Pemex has one of the most radical legal monopolies in the world, in that it owns all oil in Mexico and is the only company which can extract and sell it. Just this month, to help develop deep sea deposits, the Mexican government allowed private partnerships with Pemex. This is an erosion of state control seen as very troubling to a large demographic there. Even though it's far from a full privatization, it's seen as the first step of a very slippery slope.

The oilworkers union is also highly corrupt and is used by the ruling PRI as a vote bank while the union leaders have become incredibly wealthy individuals. If there was ever a "labor aristocracy" in the worst sense of the term it is the people running Mexico's big state unions. They support the PRI and the State more broadly when it is gunning down peasants in Chiapas, taking land for gold miners and terrorizing people with Communist political ideologies. They even support the PRI in privatizing part of their company. So it's easy to see how a nationalized industry in a bourgeois state can bring some benefits, but is also highly problematic.

Of course, it's interesting to see that it was the state which initially nationalized the company which was responsible for pushing the privatization too. It goes to show that the class base of the parties which push nationalization is often NOT the working class (or at the least, in these broad tent social democratic parties, it's easy for other classes to wrest control of these parties from workers). It's interesting to see so many Mexican Leftists in the assembly and on the streets rallying around the call to preserve Pemex in light of the recent privatization push. Pemex really is a golden cow of Mexican workers, students, radicals and so on, much like the NHS in the UK I suppose.


I tend to think that the benefits of nationalizing some companies in a bourgeois state are tangible and quantifiable, but at the same time Ed is right that these actions don't constitute a revolution but a different management of capitalism. I can see why people argue that it might be a "first step" but historically after that "first step" is made the state elects its own version of Thatcher and takes two steps back. Perhaps that is because nationalization isn't always the step forward which it is presented as. Nationalization also does nothing to solve the alienation of people between states. Britain had many nationalized industries during the Cold War, but it still used spies to topple governments in other parts of the world which were trying to nationalize English firms themselves. In a way, that's the greatest irony of nationalization - since it only helps the working class of one state, it just entrenches the kinds of divisions which preserve capitalism if the working class is not sufficiently conscious of their situation. Thus you can have British workers in a state-owned steel mill making steel that will go into a gun used to assassinate the President of some country in Africa trying to nationalize a British steel mill there.

[ed miliband]

Well with that perspective, why not anarchism or utopian capitalism? If you want a mental shortcut to stateless utopia than don't ask disingenuous questions.

you what? how does arguing against managing capital -> "utopian capitalism". with your explicit support for nationalisation as a better way of managing capital, i'd say it's you who is the "utopian capitalist".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I tend to think that the benefits of nationalizing some companies in a bourgeois state are tangible and quantifiable, but at the same time Ed is right that these actions don't constitute a revolution but a different management of capitalism. I can see why people argue that it might be a "first step" but historically after that "first step" is made the state elects its own version of Thatcher and takes two steps back. Perhaps that is because nationalization isn't always the step forward which it is presented as.

I was reading your post and waiting for you to get to this point.

We can view capital through the prism of periods of 'legitimisation', where capital must save itself in the long-run by giving some reforms to workers, and 'accumulation', a period where capital goes on the offensive and increases the surplus they extract from workers, and thus the capital that they can accumulate thereafter.

It seems to me that nationalisation occurs in periods of legitimisation, for example in Europe post-WW2. You then correctly identify that "historically after that "first step" is made the state elects its own version of Thatcher and takes two steps back." I would say that you are in the right area (one step forwards, two steps back idea), but not quite on the money. It is not that a right-winger is elected, and it is not the state that has agency, but capital itself. Capital is the active agent in this process; years before Thatcher was elected, for example, Britain started the process of liberalising prices. By 1976, the first stage of this had culminated in Britain being bailed out by the IMF. By the time Thatcher was elected in 1979, Britain was ripe for the second, even more aggressive stage of 'accumulation', a process which had begun many years earlier, after a couple of decades of 'legitimisation' by capital designed to ensure capital's social position in the long run by placating the working class post-WW2, a process whose hallmark was state ownership of industry.

The main point here is that, as you say, nationalisation is not a grand beginning of something revolutionary or even temporarily 'to the left' (whatever that may mean) of private ownership of industry, but merely one of the levers capital uses by which to cement its own long-term social hegemony.

[Art Vandelay]

Transitional programs are never programs for socialism/maximum programs.

I'm not sure what you mean here, the transitional method is certainly 'for socialism.' The entire point, is to concretize reforms we struggle for here and now, within the context of the need for socialist revolution and the realities of class society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm not sure what you mean here, the transitional method is certainly 'for socialism.' The entire point, is to concretize reforms we struggle for here and now, within the context of the need for socialist revolution and the realities of class society.

By not being for socialism I mean that the demands in and of themselves are not suffice to create a socialist society. Sorry for the poor wording.

[Brotto Rühle]

By not being for socialism I mean that the demands in and of themselves are not suffice to create a socialist society. Sorry for the poor wording.

Transitional demands are not supposed to be achievable within capitalist society. History, and a basic understanding of Marx's critique of political economy, shows us that small and large scale nationalization is totally compatible with capitalist society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Transitional demands are not supposed to be achievable within capitalist society. History, and a basic understanding of Marx's critique of political economy, shows us that small and large scale nationalization is totally compatible with capitalist society.

You are oh so correct, sir/madam. While nationalization is compatible with capitalism, like in the Soviet Union, it is incredibly dangerous to the ruling capitalist class. That is why it will not be done by today's bourgeoisie in traditional capitalist countries. It is also why Trotksy believed it could never exist. But it could, actually. But as we all saw, it was quickly brought back to traditional capitalism because of this danger to the ruling capitalist class.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are oh so correct, sir/madam. While nationalization is compatible with capitalism, like in the Soviet Union, it is incredibly dangerous to the ruling capitalist class. That is why it will not be done by today's bourgeoisie in traditional capitalist countries. It is also why Trotksy believed it could never exist. But it could, actually. But as we all saw, it was quickly brought back to traditional capitalism.

Have you read anything in this thread?

Or like, any history, at all? Did the history of the 20th century just pass you by? Most production in the world in the last century came out of the nationalised sector, and it still did a very good job of propping up capitalism.

Nationalisation generally poses no threat to the bourgeoisie, why would it? What poses a threat to the bourgeoisie is democracy, by the workers, for and of themselves. Nationalisation, in several centuries of capitalism hitherto, has never, ever possessed such qualities of democratic control. It is a pipe dream.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Have you read anything in this thread?

Or like, any history, at all? Did the history of the 20th century just pass you by? Most production in the world in the last century came out of the nationalised sector, and it still did a very good job of propping up capitalism.

Nationalisation generally poses no threat to the bourgeoisie, why would it? What poses a threat to the bourgeoisie is democracy, by the workers, for and of themselves. Nationalisation, in several centuries of capitalism hitherto, has never, ever possessed such qualities of democratic control. It is a pipe dream.

I'm not referring to individual, nationalized sectors of a traditional capitalist economy but rather to a fully nationalized, state capitalist economy like the one of the Soviet Union.

[Brotto Rühle]

You are oh so correct, sir/madam. While nationalization is compatible with capitalism, like in the Soviet Union, it is incredibly dangerous to the ruling capitalist class. That is why it will not be done by today's bourgeoisie in traditional capitalist countries. It is also why Trotksy believed it could never exist. But it could, actually. But as we all saw, it was quickly brought back to traditional capitalism because of this danger to the ruling capitalist class.

It's what made the soviet capitalist class.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's what made the soviet capitalist class.

Yes, which chose to move towards a more traditional form of capitalism for the reasons I mentioned.

[Per Levy]

You are oh so correct, sir/madam. While nationalization is compatible with capitalism, like in the Soviet Union, it is incredibly dangerous to the ruling capitalist class. That is why it will not be done by today's bourgeoisie in traditional capitalist countries.

actually nationalizations are done on a daily basis especially in traditionaly capitalist countries, or do you think that taking over a "bad bank" isnt nationalization? that is just one of many examples, another one would that here in germany several villages will probally be destroyed by the state to make place for coalmines. that is nationalization too. both these cases help the bourgeoise, actually pretty much any nationalization helps the bourgeoisie nowadays. it shows that the state is a tool of the bourgeoisie class.

[Fourth Internationalist]

actually nationalizations are done on a daily basis especially in traditionaly capitalist countries, or do you think that taking over a "bad bank" isnt nationalization? that is just one of many examples, another one would that here in germany several villages will probally be destroyed by the state to make place for coalmines. that is nationalization too. both these cases help the bourgeoise, actually pretty much any nationalization helps the bourgeoisie nowadays. it shows that the state is a tool of the bourgeoisie class.
In my post you just responded to, I'm not referring to individual, nationalized sectors of a traditional capitalist economy but rather to a fully nationalized, state capitalist economy like the one of the Soviet Union.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not referring to individual, nationalized sectors of a traditional capitalist economy but rather to a fully nationalized, state capitalist economy like the one of the Soviet Union.

You want to re-create that???

in nearly three quarters of a century, they were so far from creating socialism. Why would you want to create that again?

It's a dead model.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You want to re-create that???

in nearly three quarters of a century, they were so far from creating socialism. Why would you want to create that again?

It's a dead model.

Umm no, I don't want to re-create Stalinism. After all, I'm not a Stalinist. You've missed my entire point, to be quite frank.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think I have. You seem to be supporting the creation of a state monopoly on production. I'm saying that there are several posts in this thread that show why this is a mis-guided and foolish strategy.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't think I have. You seem to be supporting the creation of a state monopoly on production. I'm saying that there are several posts in this thread that show why this is a mis-guided and foolish strategy.

... No I'm not. I know what my own beliefs are, so I'm not going to be so easily convinced I support Stalinist, state capitalism.

[Art Vandelay]

Pretty sure Link's point is that the differing ways in which capital is organized, can have a quantitative impact on the lives of the working class, not that he wants to recreate those differing ways of organizing capital or sees them as viable revolutionary strategies.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I was reading your post and waiting for you to get to this point.

We can view capital through the prism of periods of 'legitimisation', where capital must save itself in the long-run by giving some reforms to workers, and 'accumulation', a period where capital goes on the offensive and increases the surplus they extract from workers, and thus the capital that they can accumulate thereafter.

It seems to me that nationalisation occurs in periods of legitimisation, for example in Europe post-WW2. You then correctly identify that "historically after that "first step" is made the state elects its own version of Thatcher and takes two steps back." I would say that you are in the right area (one step forwards, two steps back idea), but not quite on the money. It is not that a right-winger is elected, and it is not the state that has agency, but capital itself. Capital is the active agent in this process; years before Thatcher was elected, for example, Britain started the process of liberalising prices. By 1976, the first stage of this had culminated in Britain being bailed out by the IMF. By the time Thatcher was elected in 1979, Britain was ripe for the second, even more aggressive stage of 'accumulation', a process which had begun many years earlier, after a couple of decades of 'legitimisation' by capital designed to ensure capital's social position in the long run by placating the working class post-WW2, a process whose hallmark was state ownership of industry.

The main point here is that, as you say, nationalisation is not a grand beginning of something revolutionary or even temporarily 'to the left' (whatever that may mean) of private ownership of industry, but merely one of the levers capital uses by which to cement its own long-term social hegemony.

You're right about Thatcher and neoliberalism - she wasn't some wicked witch who just waved her wand and ended social democracy as some on the unionized left in the UK would want to think. To me she does symbolize the nail in the coffin of English social democracy though.


I don't think I have. You seem to be supporting the creation of a state monopoly on production. I'm saying that there are several posts in this thread that show why this is a mis-guided and foolish strategy.


... No I'm not. I know what my own beliefs are, so I'm not going to be so easily convinced I support Stalinist, state capitalism.

IMO Stalinism and Trotskyism are often more similar than Stalinists and some Trots would like to admit. They both stem from the same Leninist model for one thing, and they share some basic strategic assumptions about the role of the state which they adopted from the Bolshevik experience in Russia (in my non-expert opinion).

[Fourth Internationalist]

IMO Stalinism and Trotskyism are often more similar than Stalinists and some Trots would like to admit. They both stem from the same Leninist model for one thing, and they share some basic strategic assumptions about the role of the state which they adopted from the Bolshevik experience in Russia (in my non-expert opinion).

Stalinism does not stem from Leninism, nor does it follow the Leninist model. Stalinism is, at best, a perversion of Leninism. Though, I think that characterization gives Stalinism too close of a relationship to Leninism. It isn't tied at all to Leninism, given that it actually stemmed from the degeneration of Russia's workers' state. It really was the counter-revolutionary ideology and system of an out-of-control bureaucracy, making use of of quasi-Marxist/Leninist rhetoric as a justification for its parasitical and exploitative nature.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Stalinism does not stem from Leninism, nor does it follow the Leninist model. Stalinism is, at best, a perversion of Leninism. Though, I think that characterization gives Stalinism too close of a relationship to Leninism. It isn't tied at all to Leninism, given that it actually stemmed from the degeneration of Russia's workers' state. It really was the counter-revolutionary ideology and system of an out-of-control bureaucracy, making use of of quasi-Marxist/Leninist rhetoric as a justification for its parasitical and exploitative nature.
yeah I'm familiar with the Trotskyist critiques of Stalinism, but the point is that Stalin's political support base grew out of the exact same political movement as Trotsky's political support base. They both had radically different pictures of Leninism and revolution, but that doesn't change the fact that Stalin and Trotsky were fighting over the same party, and each had supporters from the same party.

I'm not making an equation between Stalin and Trotsky on any level. The betrayal by the Stalinists in Spain shows the depth of differences between the two sides. They were very different men with different images of what the USSR should look like, and I respect Trotsky as a theorist and a thinker in a way that I don't think anyone should with Stalin. And I think Trotsky had a better command of economic and political theory, as well as the steps needed to both preserve and progress the revolution. The point, though, is that the same Bolshevik revolution spawned both factions, and that influenced their basic ideological premises.

[goalkeeper]

You see supposed lefties get bogged down in this nationalisation vs privatisation debate and its fucking stupid. I mean, all it basically is is a technical economic argument; which is better at running an enterprise, civil servants or boards of directors? It has zero really to do with class as such. Both sides of the debate can draw on considerations of the working class i.e. the pro-nationalisation guys will say there will be better conditions, employees will be potentially shielded from the fluctuations of the market while pro-privatisation people will talk of reduced costs and better services for those with less money. There may be a natural disposition among leftists, with their natural sympathies for workers and emphasis on the point of the production to side with the former, but either way, this has anything to do with actual revolutionary class based politics and challenging capital, its just a sympathy for one section of society just, well, just because, within a wider technical economic debate about how best to manage enterprises.

[Ocean Seal]

I am not sure exactly what you mean by the 'third world', but I imagine I have lived in what you would refer to as such. In general jobs in big international companies tend to be better than the same jobs in small local companies. It might not fit in with your ideology. Nevertheless, it is true.

Devrim
I've heard this claim before, and I don't contest this completely, but the only people that I've heard this from are engineers and other specialists in Peru/Ecuador. It could be different elsewhere, and yes they can offer better jobs, but when industries are nationalized the profit from those industries typically goes to fuel social programs whereas neoliberal regimes with high levels of international participation typically outsource this profit.

[Bardo]

Leftists* only want the state to own the means of production (nationalize them) if the state in question is socialist and will put the surplus-value to furthering the revolution and advancing the population's human-development. If not it is just state-capitalism.




*Minus anarchists etc obviously because they don't want a state.

Do Marxists want a state? Even in the Bolshevik rhetoric before the revolution until shortly after Lenin's death, the nationalization of industries was to serve as a temporary means to collect privately owned productive means while still maintaining that the state will eventually dissolve. In the years after though, it became apparent that the USSR was not interested in dismantling state power.

How can a Marxist support a state that maintains the state apparatus indefinitely, extracting surplus value from its workers and distributing it as they please? Even if it's distribution is in the interest of the entire population? This is a bourgeois, state capitalist state.

With that said, I can see short term and superficial benefits of certain state owned industries while we are still living under a private capitalist economy. So long as a state enterprise is able to provide goods and services cheaper and sometimes even better than their private counterparts, I'm all for it. Health care, for example. I'd much prefer a nationalized healthcare service over a privately held corporate insurance market.

This isn't socialist and doesn't provide a revolutionary means to socialism. However, it's a much more attractive option. So there are several instances where I would prefer nationalized industries over private ones in an individualist bourgeois society. To me, this is irrelevant to any ideological lens of viewing such matters, it's a pragmatic solution for the time being, I wouldn't simply prefer a state run energy system over a private one on an ideological basis alone as I see little difference between the two, for example.