state ownership of Northern Rock bank?

[Holden Caulfield]

do we think that nationalization of the failing English bank Northern Rock is a good measure that would benafit any future socialist government, OR a way of a bourgosie government, as exsists, at the moment to further control capital and get back the money they invested by assuming control?

any thoughts?

[piet11111]

nationalisation of banks is always a good thing because it prevents the casino-capitalism that allowed this sub-prime crisis to even become a problem.

despite all its flaws a government is far more likely to act responsibly then an individual would.

[Luís Henrique]

privatisation of banks is always a good thing because it prevents the casino-capitalism that allowed this sub-prime crisis to even become a problem.

despite all its flaws a government is far more likely to act responsibly then an individual would.

Erm... mistype?

Luís Henrique

[piet11111]

Erm... mistype?

Luís Henrique

woops yeah i obviously meant nationalisation there

[robot lenin]

Fair play: the bank, in national hands, would provide a means for the state to control capital and prevent - to a degree - the 'casino capitalism' that has taken place. I say 'to a degree' because many other banks, much larger than Northern Rock, still exist in the hands of the private sector, with the attendant problems. In any case, do we really want a state which is under the control of an effective Thatcherite dynasty and bent on severly reducing civil liberties to take control of anything: they could use additional state resources against us.

In any case, I for one take the side of UK journalist and author George Monbiot [see his website under the article 'Libertarians are the True Social Parasites', I'd love to post a link but apparently I'm not allowed]: why bail out a man who detests any form of state intervention when he comes begging to save his sorry ass. He should be made to pay for what he has done with his customers' savings, and although I do believe that some form of reparations to the customers should be made, Ridley should be punished.

[Socialistpenguin]

About time it was nationalised, after the government spent millions upon millions of tax payer revenue to subsidise a private company :rolleyes:

It is quite a perculiar situation, which I suspect is more akin to the 19th Century: organs of the free market such as the Financial Times calling for nationalisation of the bank, as well as others with the stock markets in flux. What a change from the hardcore monetarism of the 80s!

[BobKKKindle$]

Nationalisation is not an inherently progressive development, as the capitalist state is simply a political extension of the bourgeoisie's economic strength, such that placing any kind of enterprise under state control does not entail an attack on the bourgeoisie's economic interests. It is for this reason that nationalisation is supported by key sections of the city of London, as investors want to ensure that their assets are protected, and a valuable opportunity for profit continues to exist. Socialists often make the mistake of assuming that extensive state ownership can make a country (or a sector of the economy) 'more' socialist without examining the crucial issue of control.

[piet11111]

Nationalisation is not an inherently progressive development, as the capitalist state is simply a political extension of the bourgeoisie's economic strength, such that placing any kind of enterprise under state control does not entail an attack on the bourgeoisie's economic interests. It is for this reason that nationalisation is supported by key sections of the city of London, as investors want to ensure that their assets are protected, and a valuable opportunity for profit continues to exist. Socialists often make the mistake of assuming that extensive state ownership can make a country (or a sector of the economy) 'more' socialist without examining the crucial issue of control.

ofcourse such a nationalisation does nothing for the socialist revolution i was just looking at it from the perspective of the proles that have accounts at northern rock.
with the bank under state control their money wont vaporise because the state will have to stand for it.
that may not mean dick to the advancement of socialism but for those that have accounts at northern rock it makes all the difference.

and its always a good thing to have examples like this to point out why we need socialism to protect us from financial ruin at the hands of irresponsible capitalists.

[Dr Mindbender]

nationalisation per se is good because it brings any industry under the domain of the democratic public concensus.

[Colonello Buendia]

with Northern Rock eroded, the Government subsidies need reclaimed, so it will be just like before but with a different boss

[robot lenin]

Ulster Socialist, you are completely wrong. Lenin (in 'The State and Revolution'...I think) argued that no state in bougeois society is completely democratic, and any party that is allowed to be represented in a bourgeois government is going to, by definition, be non-hostile to the free market.

This is true in any bourgeois government, especially the UK. The UK, in case you didn't know, runs by the First Past The Post voting system, which essentially allows a party with 50.1% of the popular vote - in some circumstances - to win 100% of the seats in Parliament. Usually this is less severe, but any winning party is usually given an extra allocation of seats by the normal process: the 'winner's bonus'. But anyway, this by itself is undemocratic. In addition, since the UK has no proportional system of voting, so no marginal party (eg the Greens or RESPECT) will ever win a great enough part of the vote to influence the policies of the country.

This is important, and leads to the fact that the 3 main parties are Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. These are all right-wing, or at least in the economic sense free-marketeering, and thus any nationalisation of Northern Rock will NOT be governed in the interests of the people, let alone under 'the domain of the democratic public consensus'.

[redarmyfaction38]

Nationalisation is not an inherently progressive development, as the capitalist state is simply a political extension of the bourgeoisie's economic strength, such that placing any kind of enterprise under state control does not entail an attack on the bourgeoisie's economic interests. It is for this reason that nationalisation is supported by key sections of the city of London, as investors want to ensure that their assets are protected, and a valuable opportunity for profit continues to exist. Socialists often make the mistake of assuming that extensive state ownership can make a country (or a sector of the economy) 'more' socialist without examining the crucial issue of control.

absolutely correct!
"nationalisation" in itself is not a "socialist" or "revolutionary" act, it is not necesarily "progressive" either.
thatcher nationalised a merchant bank in order to protect the interests of the owners and the capitalist system.
hitler nationalised industries in order to create the nazi state. ted heathh nationalised rolls royce in order to protect the interests of the "national economy".

the capitalists are quite happy to nationalise their granny if it serves their economic purpose, what they won't do, is give the people any say on how "granny" should be run!:D