Privatization/de-regulation

[Psy]

Privatization and de-regulation does allow capitalists to accumulate more capital but is this at the cost of the power and stability of the bourgeois state? How can a bourgeois state effectively look after the collective affairs of the capitalist class, if the capitalist class forces the state to allow individal capitalists to profit at the expense of the capitalist class as a whole?

Would this division of capitalist class weaken their power in the long run? I would think if they allow the bourgeois state to collapse out of their own greed there would be nothing left to protect them from a workers uprising, but are capitalists that greedy?

[Lynx]

Privatization of natural monopolies is possible, but only with strict regulation.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:32 pm
Privatization of natural monopolies is possible, but only with strict regulation.
If you haven't noticed de-regulation has followed privatization. We are seeing a era were the capitalist class wants unrestricted power to accumulate capital even if it means weakening the state that protects them.

[Demogorgon]

Privatisation strengthens the bourgoisie state by allowing them to create a whole new load of wealthy allies. Notice what Yeltsin did in Russia to see the ultimate example of this.

It isn't going to weaken their ability to keep control if need be either. It isn't as if they are privatising the police or military, is it?

[Psy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 15, 2007 10:39 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 15, 2007 10:39 pm)Privatisation strengthens the bourgoisie state by allowing them to create a whole new load of wealthy allies. Notice what Yeltsin did in Russia to see the ultimate example of this.
[/b]

Look at the credit bubble burst in which capitalists states are too weak (against the capitalist class) to do anything about it but propagate that everything is fine and the economy is still strong (like how the USSR said their economy was doing fine).


Demogorgon

It isn't going to weaken their ability to keep control if need be either. It isn't as if they are privatising the police or military, is it?
If you look at the US military in Iraq a lot of work has been subcontracted out to capitalists that provide poor service at inflated prices. Haliburton was caught burning their equipment claiming they were lost in battle so they could charge the government for replacements.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:39 pm
If you haven't noticed de-regulation has followed privatization. We are seeing a era were the capitalist class wants unrestricted power to accumulate capital even if it means weakening the state that protects them.
That is when the trouble begins. Without regulation, utilities neglect maintenance (Ohio power - FirstEnergy Corporation), make inappropriate investments (Montana power) or play games (Enron 'giving it' to California).

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0821-12.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

[Guest1]

Privatization destroys the lives of millions of people. It does not weaken the bourgeoisie, but is rather a sign of the senile decay of the capitalist system itself. Sure, the Capitalists create plenty of crises in their final days, but that does not mean that we should look at the privatizations as weakening the bourgeoisie.

Actually, it's more that a bourgeoisie that is no longer economically progressive, no longer productive, has to rely on privatizations to create new markets and new spheres of investment.

Instead of building, they begin to canabilize all of the achievements of the past decades, the ones won by the working class through hard struggle. That includes education, healthcare, levees, social housing, etc...

Every "leftist" who cheers privatization is a fucking reactionary.

[bootleg42]

All the private property, you're referring to, relies on the existence of the state to remain alive and well so I don't see how privatization could weaken the state itself.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:07 am
All the private property, you're referring to, relies on the existence of the state to remain alive and well so I don't see how privatization could weaken the state itself.
Unregulated supply of electricity interrupts production the northeast black out of 2003 simply because capitalists running the power companies not wanting to invest in properly maintaining the electrical system. Deregulation allowed Enron to engineer blackouts in California so it could profit off it. This weakens the capitalist state as blackouts not only takes production off line but consumption, people can't buy without the bank computers running, the cash registers at the stores running and the network the linking them running, no electricity means the modern capitalist economy stops to function.

Deregulation of the financial market allowed the huge credit bubble that now has popped which has many capitalist scared as they wait the fall out, some fear when the dust clear the crashing of the credit market will bring down the world economy like in the 1929.

In Iraq deregulation of contractors has resulted in capitalist sabotaging themselves so they can bill the state for more money.