Results 1 to 20 of 39
How should we model state-owned business from an economic point of view?
[FONT=Calibri]How do you guys think we should model state-owned business from left economic point of view? Should we model it as a business with a 100% profit tax, or as a corporation whose shares are owned by the state? Or do you guy have another point of view?[/FONT]
Stalin came to the Soviet Union when everyone laughed at her, and left with them only laughing with her.
Running the state owned corporation like a regular private business is problem the left ran into in the first place. Nationalizing the contradictions of capitalism does not help our cause.
In answer to your question though. Read Ha Joon Chang's book Bad Samaritans, there is a whole chapter in there dedicated to the power and profitability of state owned enterprises. Some of them were more profitable than the biggest privately owned enterprises in nations like Chile and Singapore. Codelco and an airline I forgot in Singapore where the state owns majority share are extremely profitable and add a ton of wealth the their respective nations.
Now imagine if these enterprises were not only state owned but worker run and managed! True wealth right there, my friend.
The question is how we should model state owned corpotations, not if or can they make a profit.
Stalin came to the Soviet Union when everyone laughed at her, and left with them only laughing with her.
By worker-elected managers and worker input through unions and workers councils, of course. Eventually the state will have nothing to do with it.
again, this post is about how to model state owned business, not who should run it, or if it will make a profit.
Stalin came to the Soviet Union when everyone laughed at her, and left with them only laughing with her.
wat?! State-owned businesses are left?!
Left-economics means no corporations, no profits.
Could you please clarify? Are you stating this as some sort of transitional stage?
[FONT=Arial]"We are going to inherit the earth . There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie may blast and burn its own world before it finally leaves the stage of history. We Are not afraid of ruins. We who ploughed the prairies and built the cities can build again, only better next time. We carry a new world, here in our hearts. That world is growing this minute." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]----Durruti[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I am asking for any point of view on how it should be modeled, right or left. Also I wouldn't mix up profits with surpluses value. They are two different things. They are not also a part of the question, which is about modeling state owned corporations.[/FONT]wat?! State-owned businesses are left?!
Left-economics means no corporations, no profits.
Could you please clarify? Are you stating this as some sort of transitional stage?
Stalin came to the Soviet Union when everyone laughed at her, and left with them only laughing with her.
Ok this thread doesn't make any sense. Please give a solid, explained example of what exactly it is that you're getting at with this Comrade Stalin, or it gets tossed.
If it's nationalized, then it should be democratized -- workers' control of production; elected management (with the ability to immediately recall, and not paid any more than the average skilled worker); removal of shares from the stock market; etc.
Yes comrade Miles that would be an answer if that's what was meant. I thought RadioRaheem and Captain Cuba were on the track but each apparently not...thus the confusion.
Well, if we're talking business models, my answer is simple: none. We're not here to give capitalism a makeover or a do-over. I come to bury capitalism, not praise it.
>>We're not here to give capitalism a makeover or a do-over. I come to bury capitalism, not praise it.<<
Indeed.
That's the issue, because that's not, or doesn't appear to be, anything near what the question is. CELMX asked if this state owned business would be in a transition phase and no, not that either. Something seems quite amiss.
...You still want corporations? Don't we show direct opposition to them? Do you not remember the bureaucractic state capitalist nightmares that the Eastern Bloc was? I say collective ownership, in true socialist fashion. Factories to the factory workers, farms to the farmers, shops to the shop attendants. Dcentralization ftw.
In our methods of socialist construction, we must be completely scientific. It is a common problem in the thinking of revolutionaries to think that the revolution is the creation of socialism. This is not so. There is of course a transitional period. This period will be like capitalism in some respects. There will be "capital". That is money which will be the production of products. There may be a limited market system. These are all things Russia had, and every other socialist nation to varying degrees.
To answer your question, I would have to know what you mean about state-owned buisness. If you means things like, let's say, publix, several things would occur. First, the management of the company would be fired, and their duties would go under state control. The various competing grocery stores would all be merged under one umbrella department which would run the affairs the company. These officials would probably be elected in a representative way, with the local workers electing county, county electing regional, all the way up. This is probably how it will be for everything, everything we decide to keep. SO the corporate management model would be kept, but proletarianized. As far as economics, the profits from all industry will be rendered to the public trust. And as the wealth of the society grows so to the standard of living of the workers. The money goes to better schools, better hospitals, better housing, and food. The bourgeoisie, those who aren't arrested, will be heavily taxed, and their assets will be expropriated. You cannot destroy capitalism or the bourgeoisie in one fell swoop. They have to be gradually dismantled.
EDIT: BTW, Publix is a local grocery store. I keep forgeting not everyone here is not from Florida. lol
Last edited by btpound; 24th January 2010 at 17:46.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of bears." - Karl Marx
"It's not power that corrupts, but bears." - VI Lenin
"Political power grows from the mouth of a bear." - Mao Zedong
"Bears are more dangerous than ideas. We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have bears?" - Josef Stalin
I just dont see this period of state ownership/state capitalism as something that can wither away without another major event such as revolution. It's not exactly a transitional phase, more of one where the state builds up control over every single scrap of private property and transition to a collectively owned system and decentralized economy becomes nearly impossible as the state just amasses influence over most matters.
Do you mean the elected county representitives elect the regional ones or is that the worker's job, too?
In my opinion, btpound's post has the most common sense
May be this OP will help somebody a bit: http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-....html?t=106580
Miles:
Capitalism is not the same as capitalist mode of production
Last edited by sanpal; 24th January 2010 at 10:57.
It may have the most common sense, but if the state continues to accumulate property, it becomes all-powerful. The means of production should be placed under collective ownership ASAP otherwise we're just gonna end up with another Soviet Union; with no clear path for a future communist society. That's not a chance I'm willing to take.
Can we use whats happening in Venezuela with the grocery store chain as a good example? It's been nationalized then it will be handed over to the workers.
Yes, we want a pwerful state. Control by the state IS collective ownership, and the only alternative is private ownership. I understand your reticent to accept the concept of complete state control. But this is only if you see the state as something separate from the people. In socialist society it is not. The democratic system would be very different from the USSR, which was seriously lacking in the democratic area. There would be term limits, strong oversight committees, and impeachment for any office by universal suffrage. You may be thinking, "We have all that now and it doesn't change anything." Well, now we have a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It is run in their interests and by them. It will be the revolutionary proletariat who run the show, and not aiming for profit.
There are situations that need to be addressed and anticipated. Some conditions that could reproduce capitalism would be not having a surplus of goods, having one group of people with sole control of the means of production with no democratic control, and the pull of the world capitalist market which has smashed many revolutionary states. A socialist state needs democracy like the human body needs air.
Because of the democratic character of the way "business" is run, it will begin to wither away. Under capitalism there are plenty of things that are totally useless and unnecessary, like bosses and gasoline. But they are kept around for the sake of profit, not human need. Under socialism, we work toward need. So if there is something in that society that we don't need, it is gotten rid of, and something useful takes it's place. This goes in hand with the idea of capitalism being a fetter on society. This will take place in all corners of life, including the workplace. As the workers need the administration less and less, they take on the affairs and tasks of the administration more and more. And the management of these places will not be in the form of one-man management or edicts handed down from the head, but a unity between the governing body and the workers. Where they come together to make decisions gradually. You cant run industry with just the party or just the workers. This will lead us back to capitalism. Thus the whole thing will be gradually decentralized, but at first centralism is absolutely crucial for many reasons.
Last edited by btpound; 24th January 2010 at 17:55.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of bears." - Karl Marx
"It's not power that corrupts, but bears." - VI Lenin
"Political power grows from the mouth of a bear." - Mao Zedong
"Bears are more dangerous than ideas. We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have bears?" - Josef Stalin
