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)

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)

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...