Nationalization

[RedWorker]

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels says:


I say "have to". For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the State has become economically inevitable, only then — even if it is the State of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.

First of all, Engels states that only when the transformation into state ownership is inevitable, the action forms the basis of an economic advance. Can there, however, be any other kind of advance from nationalization which is not brought by inevitability of this kind?

Then Engels goes on and says that if the state, under a bourgeois government, nationalizes something, merely for bourgeois reasons, it does not form the basis of a "socialist measure". Is it however possible that a nationalization for other reasons (for example if a leftist party manages to seize control of the state) may form the basis of a "socialist measure", even if it does not mean the defeat of the capitalist mode of production?

But Engels says:


The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.

What does "the proletariat seizes political power" mean? Does it mean the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? Does it mean that the proletariat manages to seize the state?

But when we are talking about state property in this fashion, does it not imply that we are still in the capitalist mode of production and under the mechanisms of the bourgeois state? It seems like Engels is suggesting a top down measure, by law. So would it be a progressive measure for a leftist government to nationalize all the means of production?

[Creative Destruction]

Is it however possible that a nationalization for other reasons (for example if a leftist party manages to seize control of the state) may form the basis of a "socialist measure", even if it does not mean the defeat of the capitalist mode of production?

No.

[RedWorker]

No.

Why is the nationalization an "economic advance" only if it is inevitable, and may a non-inevitable nationalization form the basis of any other kind of non-economic advance?

The original text also says: "a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic.", with the "all" in italics.

Engels may be softly implying here that it may be possible for certain kinds of non-inevitable nationalization to be a progressive measure. Or maybe he was just emphasizing how ridiculous that so-called "Socialism" is.

[RedWorker]

So why do some Trotskyist groups call for the "nationalization with workers' control" within the bourgeois state and capitalist mode of production? Is this a progressive measure? Is it even possible? How would that "workers' control" exist? Is it even possible for something even remotely close to that to be established by top-down laws? Otherwise what is their plan for achieving workers' control?

[RedWorker]

Marx also seems to have called many times for nationalization of various parts of the economy before the workers' state has been established. I've encountered this several times in my reading and have encountered it again just now.

For instance: "All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property [...] All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state. [...] It is in the interests of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry to work with all their might to implement the above measures. [...] The Committee; Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff" (source (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm))

I would appreciate that people provide their thoughtful points of view on nationalization. Needless to be mentioned, I'm aware nationalization isn't socialism, etc...

To be clear, when I said "socialistic measure" in another post I was giving consideration to the possibility that Engels may mean a progressive measure by that wording.

[tuwix]

First of all, Engels states that only when the transformation into state ownership is inevitable, the action forms the basis of an economic advance.

This is why a profession of prophet isn't very popular. Transformation into state ownership, as history shows, wasn't inevitable and exactly opposite action which means a privatization has become an important factor of bourgeois ideology.



Marx also seems to have called many times for nationalization of various parts of the economy before the workers' state has been established. I've encountered this several times in my reading and have encountered it again just now.

For instance: "All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property [...] All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state. [...] It is in the interests of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry to work with all their might to implement the above measures. [...] The Committee; Karl Marx, Karl Schapper, H. Bauer, F. Engels, J. Moll, W. Wolff" (source (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm))


And it was done ironically by capitalist states. Certainly, there were some privatization of it in the mean time, but much of it there is still in hands of a state.

[RedWorker]

This is why a profession of prophet isn't very popular. Transformation into state ownership, as history shows, wasn't inevitable and exactly opposite action which means a privatization has become an important factor of bourgeois ideology.

Engels acknowledged that nationalizations can happen before they are inevitable - yet this would form no "economic advance". In the same way, privatizations of these non-inevitable nationalizations can occur. Also, does a privatization imply that the nationalization was not inevitable? Is this process irreversible?

[Tim Cornelis]

In Marxism, capitalism is seen as the destruction of individual ownership in the process of the concentration of capital. From individual and family workshops to factories to large businesses, to multinationals and joint-ventures, to state ownership (Engels). This is simply the product of the concentration of capital. So nationalisation is progressive in the same way that joint-ventures are. It should be stressed that while there is a visible, more or less inevitable, tendency toward the concentration of capital, that Marx and Engels predictions were overstated. So don't get hung up on these specific predictions.

Demands for nationalisation under workers' control in bourgeois society, as well as Marx's demands, should be seen in the context of minimum-maximum demands/programmes (and transitional demands). Minimum demands seek to establish or advance conditions or the preconditions that enable the working class to emancipate themselves. They provide a tangible demand for the working class to rally around as well as pose a demand which is supposedly irreconcilable with bourgeois class rule. As such it creates a tension that could lead to escalation of class struggle.

[RedWorker]

Demands for nationalisation under workers' control in bourgeois society, as well as Marx's demands, should be seen in the context of minimum-maximum demands/programmes (and transitional demands). Minimum demands seek to establish or advance conditions or the preconditions that enable the working class to emancipate themselves. They provide a tangible demand for the working class to rally around as well as pose a demand which is supposedly irreconcilable with bourgeois class rule. As such it creates a tension that could lead to escalation of class struggle.

How do you nationalise under workers' control in bourgeois society?

[Tim Cornelis]

How do you nationalise under workers' control in bourgeois society?

I'm not sue what you're getting at. It's quite easy, nationalise a business, allow workers to manage it. There's nothing more to it.

[RedWorker]

I'm not sue what you're getting at. It's quite easy, nationalise a business, allow workers to manage it. There's nothing more to it.

So in what ways is this different from both a regular nationalisation and a socialisation?

[Hit The North]

How do you nationalise under workers' control in bourgeois society?

I don't think you can - not without breaking bourgeois society in half. Nationalisation under technocratic control is possible within the framework of capitalism but not under workers' control. Trotsky must have realised this.

Nevertheless, nationalisation of industry in capitalism, whilst not delivering too many benefits to the workers, at least has the merit of prefiguring the possibility of collective, planned control over the means of production and makes ridiculous the bourgeois chimera of private ownership.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm pretty sure state companies under workers' control already exist in Venezuela so I'm not sure why Trotskyists continue this illusion that it's somehow incompatible with capitalism. It differs from socialisation in that it does not eventuate in social ownership, or common property, where it becomes the property of humanity/society, as opposed to property of the state.

Nationalisation via a workers' state on the other hand creates the conditions for the transformation to common ownership organically.

[Lower Case S]

I'm pretty sure state companies under workers' control already exist in Venezuela so I'm not sure why Trotskyists continue this illusion that it's somehow incompatible with capitalism. It differs from socialisation in that it does not eventuate in social ownership, or common property, where it becomes the property of humanity/society, as opposed to property of the state.

Nationalisation via a workers' state on the other hand creates the conditions for the transformation to common ownership organically.

You seem to be suggesting that Venezuela is a bourgeois state just like any other. It's not. It's a revolutionary state intent on building socialism. An explicit goal of the revolution is to develop the people's capacity for social ownership. So, I think it's disingenuous to present Venezuela as a good example of the normal operation of capitalism. Of course, capitalism still forms the economic basis of the country's economy, but socialism currently plays the leading role in the chavista camp as far as I can tell.

[RedWorker]

That's ridiculous. Venezuela is a bourgeois state under the capitalist mode of production with social democrat politicians in power. So is Cuba, by the way, but the difference is usually not even Stalinists argue Venezuela is a workers' state. (although, hey, it kind of goes with their logic!)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels says:

[...]

First of all, Engels states that only when the transformation into state ownership is inevitable, the action forms the basis of an economic advance. Can there, however, be any other kind of advance from nationalization which is not brought by inevitability of this kind?

Then Engels goes on and says that if the state, under a bourgeois government, nationalizes something, merely for bourgeois reasons, it does not form the basis of a "socialist measure". Is it however possible that a nationalization for other reasons (for example if a leftist party manages to seize control of the state) may form the basis of a "socialist measure", even if it does not mean the defeat of the capitalist mode of production?

But Engels says:

[...]

What does "the proletariat seizes political power" mean? Does it mean the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? Does it mean that the proletariat manages to seize the state?

But when we are talking about state property in this fashion, does it not imply that we are still in the capitalist mode of production and under the mechanisms of the bourgeois state? It seems like Engels is suggesting a top down measure, by law. So would it be a progressive measure for a leftist government to nationalize all the means of production?

I think the question many of us are asking ourselves is, what do you mean when you talk about the proletariat "seizing the state"? As you contrast it with a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, it seems to be a term for a "leftist" party forming the government of a bourgeois state. If so, there is no mystery - no matter what the gentlemen ministers please to call themselves, the state is a bourgeois state, nationalisation is a bourgeois measure.

But if the bourgeois state has been overthrown, then, presumably, one of the first acts of the revolutionary government will be to seize all private property (of course the specifics depend on the situation). It is a "top-down" measure, but so what? People seem to have this weird fetish for individual groups of workers "seizing" "their own" workplaces, as if that hasn't been shown to be compatible with capitalism so much it's not even funny anymore.

[robbo203]

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels says:



First of all, Engels states that only when the transformation into state ownership is inevitable, the action forms the basis of an economic advance. Can there, however, be any other kind of advance from nationalization which is not brought by inevitability of this kind?

Then Engels goes on and says that if the state, under a bourgeois government, nationalizes something, merely for bourgeois reasons, it does not form the basis of a "socialist measure". Is it however possible that a nationalization for other reasons (for example if a leftist party manages to seize control of the state) may form the basis of a "socialist measure", even if it does not mean the defeat of the capitalist mode of production?



Whatever Engels might have said back in the 19th century about the theoretical possiblity of nationalisation forming the basis of an "economic advance" and representing some sort of "socialist measure", there is absolutely no excuse for socialists today in the 21st century to advocate nationalisation in any shape or form. It cannot be anything other than a fundamentally pro-capitalist measure and anyone who doubts that should read Ian Bremmers work on modern state capitalism - like his book, The End of the Free Market: Who wins the wars between states and corporations? (Portfolio 2010)

Nationalisation of any kind has nothing to do with socialism; nor does it facilitate, in any way. the socialist transformation of society. The opposite is the truth.

[RedWorker]

There are exactly 0 arguments in your post. And does anyone honestly believe that there is no difference at all between there being state-owned education and exclusively private education, etc.?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You seem to be suggesting that Venezuela is a bourgeois state just like any other. It's not. It's a revolutionary state intent on building socialism. An explicit goal of the revolution is to develop the people's capacity for social ownership. So, I think it's disingenuous to present Venezuela as a good example of the normal operation of capitalism. Of course, capitalism still forms the economic basis of the country's economy, but socialism currently plays the leading role in the chavista camp as far as I can tell.

The PSUV is clearly divided between a "red bourgeoisie" and the workers, and Leftists in the PSUV are constantly complaining about this. Basically, Venezuela is a social democracy which utilizes revolutionary rhetoric and the working class to maintain its rule. It's been yet to be proven that Venezuela will be successful in "building socialism".


There are exactly 0 arguments in your post. And does anyone honestly believe that there is no difference at all between there being state-owned education and exclusively private education, etc.?

Robbo is referencing arguments made by other folks.

There is a qualitative difference between public and private education (or, in the UK, private and public education), but that difference does not lie in whether or not they fit the interests of factions of the bourgeoisie. Think of the fact that the state does not distribute resources equally among state-run schools, and the fact that bourgeois communities have superior public services generally speaking. Public schooling exists because it is in the interests of the marketplace to have a trained, and otherwise easily trainable, workforce. It also exists in a bourgeois economy in part because it is necessary to train businessmen who are innovative and actually make intelligent choices, and did not just inheritors of tons of money. While Capitalism excels at expanding already existing wealth, it also depends on a constant influx of new businesses, most of whom will fail but some of whom will bring profit to their investors. In other words, public education is good at providing returns on investment, both by training a docile workforce and in giving opportunities to a potential bourgeoisie.

In other words, public education is something which will be revolutionized much as the private education establishments.

[robbo203]

There are exactly 0 arguments in your post. And does anyone honestly believe that there is no difference at all between there being state-owned education and exclusively private education, etc.?

Sure there are differences. State education tends to be for the proles, its purpose being to churn out a cost effective and adequate supply of reasonably compliant and docile would-be wage slaves who know their place in the capitalist pecking order and do not question ot. It is a shoddy sausage factory to use Marx's metaphor in which that grim conveyer belt miscalled "education", continuously delivers to the capitalist class a supply of fresh exploitable sauages.

Private education, on the other hand tends to be for your more discerning punter with money - most notably, your would-be members of the ruling class and theirs hangers- but is no less crippled and limiting for that. Thats a caricature I realise, more so in some parts of the world than others, but it is not all that far from the truth.

Point is - what has all this got to do with the argument I made which you evidently did not read given that you imagine somehow no argument had been made? My argument was that nationalisam has got sod all to do with socialism and nor can it facilitate its introduction in any way. Whatever the difference between state and private education thats got nothing to do with this basic point I was making...

[RedWorker]

You made no arguments, you only made claims (backed by nothing) and referenced a book. (which, no offense and thanks for the suggestion, but nobody is going to read just to understand one post)

[Slavic]

You made no arguments, you only made claims (backed by nothing) and referenced a book. (which, no offense and thanks for the suggestion, but nobody is going to read just to understand one post)

A private industry is run and owned by an individual.

A nationalized industry is run and owned by the state.

The workers in both of these industries have no control over their means of production because said production is controlled by an individual or a state.

If the workers do not control and operate their industries, then there is no socialism.


There is your argument.

[RedWorker]

I already know&agree with that. His argument was that nationalization is never a progressive measure, is always against the interests of communists in the 21th century, and should never be advocated by communists.

[robbo203]

You made no arguments, you only made claims (backed by nothing) and referenced a book. (which, no offense and thanks for the suggestion, but nobody is going to read just to understand one post)

OK lets try another tack - what the hell do you think nationalisation has got to do with socialism and how do you imagine it might possibly aid its implementation?

You quote Engels but Engels also said 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. (my bold)

Care to comment?

[RedWorker]

The state exploits more citizens because these citizens now become exploited by the state rather than the bourgeoisie. There is still only one thing being said here: that nationalization does not directly challenge the capitalist mode of production.


OK lets try another tack - what the hell do you think has nationalisation got to do with socialism

It has, by itself and directly, not much to do with socialism. I said that by "socialist measure" Engels may have meant a "progressive measure" and that he may be implying that nationalization may, in some cases, be a progressive measure.

You missed the last sentence of Engels' quote: "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."

[robbo203]

The state exploits more citizens because these citizens now become exploited by the state rather than the bourgeoisie. There is still only one thing being said here: that nationalization does not directly challenge the capitalist mode of production.


True. But nor is there any prospect that it might ever challange the capitalist mode of prpduction. It is simply another method of running capitalism



It has, by itself and directly, nothing to do with socialism. I said that by "socialist measure" Engels may have meant a "progressive measure" and that he may be implying that nationalization may, in some cases, be a progressive measure.

You missed the last sentence of Engels' quote: "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."



True again. But you misunderstand my position. My position is one of actually being critical of Engel's sloppy characterisation of nationalisation as a "socialist measure" while whole heartedly endorsing what he says about the modern state being a capitalist state etc. I think Engels is talking complete bunkum when he says 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."

How does the state ownership provide the technical condition that forms the elements of the solution of conflict and what are these alleged "technical conditions"? How can state ownership be called a socialistic measure when there is nothing in it whatsoever that facilitates the implementation of socialism? On the contrary. state ownership facilitates reactionary nationalism and class collaborationism and diverts attention form the struggle to establish common ownership by degrading its real meaning and by dishonestly characterising itself as ownership by the public

[RedWorker]

How can state ownership be called a socialistic measure when there is nothing in it whatsoever that facilitates the implementation of socialism?

Well, Engels is clearly aware that nationalization is not socialization. So I think by "socialist measure" he meant "progressive measure", like social democracy. "Socialism" and "socialist" had many meanings back then, like now, like "utopian socialism", etc...

[Fakeblock]

Engels supported nationalisation by the bourgeois state in the same capacity, as he supported the centralisation, by the bourgeoisie, of the means of production against petty ownership.

[robbo203]

Well, Engels is clearly aware that nationalization is not socialization. So I think by "socialist measure" he meant "progressive measure", like social democracy. "Socialism" and "socialist" had many meanings back then, like now, like "utopian socialism", etc...

Socialism back then meant what we call authentic communism today . Socialism and communism were seen as synonyms. I think what Engels was trying to say was that nationalisation was a socialist measure in the sense that he felt it might aid the introduction of socialism, not that it was socialism itself. I think he was sorely mistaken in thinking that and we have the benefit of hindsight to see this given the whole horrendous disaster of soviet state capitalsm that dragged the good name of socialism through the mud and set back the movement for decades

[RedWorker]

Well, the "failure" of state capitalism (failure in certain contexts and with certain understandings, it's not much more of a failure than the regular capitalist states) does not mean that nationalization is necessarily never progressive. In the Soviet Union any organization of workers was not allowed etc. so any advantage of nationalization may have been prevented.

[Slavic]

Well, the "failure" of state capitalism (failure in certain contexts and with certain understandings, it's not much more of a failure than the regular capitalist states) does not mean that nationalization is necessarily never progressive. In the Soviet Union any organization of workers was not allowed etc. so any advantage of nationalization may have been prevented.


^^^^

It has, by itself and directly, not much to do with socialism. I said that by "socialist measure" Engels may have meant a "progressive measure" and that he may be implying that nationalization may, in some cases, be a progressive measure.

What do you mean by progressive?

If Nationalization has nothing to do with socialism, then what benefit does it provide for fostering a socialist society?

I can understand if you are talking about a change in the relationship between workers and industry as being progressive, such as a change from Feudalism to Capitalism, but Private owned to Nationalization does not change the economic relationship

[RedWorker]

Progressive in the same way social democracy is progressive.

[Tim Cornelis]

My argument was that nationalisam has got sod all to do with socialism and nor can it facilitate its introduction in any way.

This is a statement, not an argument.

What's completely ignored here is that to Engels nationalisation represented a sort of consolidation of centralised capital, and centralised capital does facilitate the growth of socialism and the overthrow of capitalism. None of the arguments I've seen were directed at this argument.


A private industry is run and owned by an individual.

A nationalized industry is run and owned by the state.

A private industry is whenever the direct producers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, whether owned by state or an individual.


Progressive in the same way social democracy is progressive.

That's quite different from how progressive is used in this context (by Engels). Progressive is advancing conditions that lead to the superseding of capitalism by socialism. Social-democracy being progressive is in a different sense; progressive in social policies.

[robbo203]

This is a statement, not an argument.

What's completely ignored here is that to Engels nationalisation represented a sort of consolidation of centralised capital, and centralised capital does facilitate the growth of socialism and the overthrow of capitalism. None of the arguments I've seen were directed at this argument.
.

OK I see what you are getting at. I would say in response that I thnk Engels argument is unconvincing. How does the centralisation of capital facilitate the growth of socialism?

My understanding on that point is that nationalisation being the culmination of the centralising tendency within capitalism, as it were, is meant to hasten the development of the productive forces in "hot house" fashion and that is essentially the rationale for advocating it. It is after all central to Engels' point of view that there is a growing contradiction between the developing "forces of production" and the capitalist "relations of production" and this would be the primary impetus behind a socialist revolution.

I would seriously question what is being assumed here. If this is an abstract argument about which form of capitalism can best secure the development of the productive forces - state capitalism or corporate capitalism for example - then I would say that would depend very much on what point in the developmental trajectory of a country we are talking about.

I would contend that from a capitalist point of view state capitalism was probably more suited to an immature form of capitalism such as was the case in the early decades of the Soviet Union. As the Soviet capitalist economy matured and diversified. however, a clear trend towards lower growth and stagnation emerged precisely because of inherent rigidilites and inefficiencies of the prevailing system that, amongst other things, handicapped it when it came to competing on the global market


No doubt such a system is preferable from a capitalist point of view when we are talking about the need to develop large scale infrastructural projects and heavy industry that will help to orientate a relatively backward country and propel it along a path of rapid growth and development but it becomes increasingly cumbersome and unwieldy as that capitalist development proceeds . That also means it becomes more difficult to remain relatively isolated from the rest of the world and the influences this brings.

This in my view was one of the major reasons for the implosion of soviet state capitalism and the so called "revolution from above" by significant sections of the Soviet capitalist class - the nomenklatura - who found that the old system no longer suited their interests and accordingly set out to overthrow it and embrace corporate capitalism instead.

State capitalism of a kind continues, of course, but it is an empty husk that bears little resemblance to the state capitalism of yesteryear. State corporations today are little different from private corporations - read Ian Bremmer on this, he is quite enlightening - corporate capitalism being more appropriate in capitalist terms to a more developed form of capitalist economy. That apart I think it was almost inevitable that things would turn out like this anyway given the postwar growth in globalisation, a process that had been stalled somewhat in the first half of the 20th century by two devastating world wars.

Im rambling so i will come to the point. Nationalisation from a capitalist point of view might conceivably have been more suitable as a strategy is to develop the forces of production at any early stage of development but this is no longer true of today. In any case even if it was true that at one time nationalisation was a progressive measure that would still not be grounds for socialists back then, when capitalism was still develpoing, to be advocating nationalisation anyway. Marx and Engels erred badly in that respect even if they fully understood (unlike Lenin) that nationalisation has nothing to do with socialism.

From a socialist point of view, the forces of production have already developed to the point at which worldwide socialism is now technically feasible. Quite simply, these forces do not need to be developed any further to enable socialism to happen; the problem lies rather with the capitalist relations of production (and the political outlook of the workers which keeps the system going) but these relations of production will not be got rid of in the slightest by nationalisation.

We already live in a global system of intergrated interdependent socialised production. Calling for the nationalisation of the means of production by a capitalist state is deeply reactionary and flies in the face of this developmet. It facilitates the growth of a deluded nationalism - the workers in a given country are encouraged to believe that a nationalised industry belongs to them and not some other state or some other groups of workers elsewhere - when, really, what we should be encouraging is a sense of common identity amongst the working class worldwide

[Fakeblock]

To elaborate on my previous point, nationalisation in bourgeois society is progressive, only insofar, as it cripples the social power of the reactionary classes. Engels is not making a point about nationalisation in particular. He is talking about the centralisation of the means of production, as a measure that further polarises society into bourgeoisie and proletariat, and, as such, intensifies the class struggle. With the centralisation of the means of production in capitalism any possibility of feudal, peasant or petty bourgeois reaction becomes unviable and the remnants of these classes will have to ally themselves with either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. However, with the sufficient development of the production, they lose the means through which they, by themselves, can struggle against the existing state of things.

Of course, nationalisation under the dictatorship of the proletariat, e.g. Soviet Russia, is a different story. In this case, in fact, we are speaking of socialisation, in the only meaningful sense of the word.