Is it time to nationalize certain industries?

[KansDem]

From time to time, I've seen threads addressing this topic and I usually ignore them due to the massive paradigm switch involved. But since the price of gas keeps on increasing along with corruption in the government, I wonder if this might not be a bad idea.

Nationalize the oil/gas industry--Americans are being held hostage by a few powerful corporations/families over which we have no control. Even the Saudis have a greater influence in the running of the United States than the average American citizen does. Perhaps taking over oil/gas exploration, extracting, and refining might help to free us from foreign influence. Even if we needed to illegally invade a country for its oil again, the government could just inform the citizens "We need more oil so we are invading xyz country to grab theirs." Wouldn't this be better than making up a whole pack of lies about spreading "freedom" and "democracy?" Wouldn't this be better than going to the trouble of exposing the country's intelligence operations to the enemy in order to silence a lone dissenter who is critizing the need to go to war? And the American people would control the industry, not some small cartel.

Nationalize the automobile insurance industry--it's been exactly 6 months since I was in an accident that totaled my car. I was not at fault: the other driver was cited for running a red light. However, I had to spend several weeks haggling with the insurance company of the other driver to try to get a fair settlement. I was constantly being "low balled." Finally, I did settle but it was for less than was necessary to buy a comparable car. But it is obvious we rely on our cars more and more, due in large part by a mindset that says "Build where you want without any regard to mass transit." So why not add a few cents per gallon at the pump to pay for universal auto insurance? That way, those driver who are on the road more and consequently are at higher risk, would be paying more for auto insurance as they would be buying more gas.

Nationalize the health care industry--the old argument of "This will explode the nation's budget" just doesn't work anymore considering we are spending how many hundreds of billions on a lie in Iraq? And the argument of "Government would deliver less than satisfactory health care" would also be bogus if we designed our system on the successes of other nations, ie. Canada and European nations.

Can anyone really defend the notion that these industries work better in a "for-profit" system?

[K-W]

1. I think all industries should be nationalized.

Every corporation should be forced to serve the public interest.

The idea that there is some societal value in a lawless economy is absurd.

[eallen]

3. Yeah, this has worked so well in the nations that tried it.

I sympathize with those who want national health care and other social services, as provided by many of the west European nations. Mark well, however, that they each have realized the absolute necessity of maintaining an underlying capitalist economy, to provide the wealth from which these services are provided.

[K-W]

6. Nobody wants your sympathy.

Just stop standing in the way of progress because you hairbrained economic theories tell you it makes sense to have institutions that we rely on for survival under the management of udemocratic organizations owned by and thus serving the interests of the wealthy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Touche`

:thumbsup:

[eallen]

9. You're the one standing in the way of progress.

The vast majority of Democrats reject the idea of nationalizing all business.

Unfortunately, the wingnuts on the right are able to smear the Democratic Party as a whole as socialists who would nationalize corporations, because of the small fringe of wingnuts on the left who would do so. Even though the Democratic wingnuts are fewer than in number than the radicals on the right, and far less likely ever to see their views implemented, this has proved a most effective attack.

[K-W]

13. The reason the right is able to smear the left

is because of people like you that internalize the right's lies.

There is nothing radical about supporting democratic-republican governance in a supposed democratic-republic.

[eallen]

14. Democratic-republican governance doesn't require destroying capitalism.

According to your views, there are no democratic-republican governments in the west, except maybe Cuba. Every western democracy, from Canada to Finland, has a capitalist economy, an economy that not only makes its people wealthy as workers, consumers, and investors, but that also provides enough surplus for the various government programs over which we argue the right.

[K-W]

18. Huh?

Democratic-republican governance doesn't require destroying capitalism.

Actually it does. Capitalism is a system by which the economy is steered by investment decisions of wealthy. It is a plutocracy. One would in fact have to destroy that system if one wanted to replace it with democratic-republican governance.

According to your views, there are no democratic-republican governments in the west, except maybe Cuba.

I dont know how exactly you misread my views this bizzarely. Needless to say no, those are not my views at all.

Every western democracy, from Canada to Finland, has a capitalist economy

I dont know why you would use the term democracy to refer to such states, but no, not all western nations have capitalist economies, although all have some level or aspects of capitalism.

an economy that not only makes its people wealthy as workers, consumers, and investors, but that also provides enough surplus for the various government programs over which we argue the right.

Yes, we live in a real utopia! Capitalism doesnt make workers wealthy, it makes wealthy people more wealthy. If capitalism made the workers wealthy we wouldnt have workers anymore, just wealthy people. And the surplus captialism does provide does not fund government programs. They are funded through taxes. The surplus in capitalism is called profit and by and large it goes into the bank accounts of the wealthy or to fuel the institutions that keep the wealthy wealthy.

[eallen]

21. Name the western nations that don't have capitalist economies.

And point to the nation whose system that you think we should emulate.

Since you thought it was "bizarre" for me to read that Cuba was following your economic prescription, perhaps you would explain where it falls short of that?

[K-W]

26. There are no pure capitalist economies.

I said all western nations have some aspects of thier economy that run according to capitalist principals. The issue is how much power over the economy lies in the hands of private capital versus public government (and also how public that public government is).

And point to the nation whose system that you think we should emulate.

I dont think we should emulate anyone. I think we as Americans should determine our own fate through democratic control of our society.

Since you thought it was "bizarre" for me to read that Cuba was following your economic prescription, perhaps you would explain where it falls short of that?

Because this isnt a discussion about Cuba even though you clearly wish it was. You are the one who brought up Cuba for no apparant reason.

[eallen]

44. Cuba is one of the few economies that has nationalized most business.

Up near the top of this subthread, you will find a post, written by yourself, titled "I think all industries should be nationalized." Being an empirical sort of person, that makes me think it is quite relevant to look at those nations that have done this, headed by leftist governments. Like Santayana, I have a great regard for history, and am a bit puzzled by the political theorists who see "no apparent reason" in looking to it.

It is severely understating things to say that western nations have "some aspects of their economy .. run according to capitalist principles." What is more accurate is that all the western nations have economies that are almost entirely capitalist, where most business is private, where most workers are employed by the private sector, where businesses grow or die by how well they compete in the market, where there are well-developed debenture, capital, and equity markets, etc. If you were to move to France (where sometimes I have done a little business), you would find a capitalist economy not all that different from the US's. There's a different culture, a different government, different social services, and different labor expectations. But it's still a capitalist economy, and business works much the same.

I think there is a reason that all the western nations rely on having a capitalist economy. It is, bluntly, the goose that lays the golden egg. Looking at things historically, I see absolutely no move now by the western nations to change that. Only a fringe of leftists are even suggesting that. But they are politically marginalized. What worries me is that their views will marginalize other, more important liberal efforts.

[K-W]

50. So you want to generalize all nationalism together.

Thats what I assumed you were trying to do. Well, I am not interested in such silly exercises. If I was talking about a cuban style government I would have said so, but Im not, so why dont you drop the subject.

Your discussion of capitalism is simple overgeneralization.

Looking at things historically, I see absolutely no move now by the western nations to change that. Only a fringe of leftists are even suggesting that. But they are politically marginalized. What worries me is that their views will marginalize other, more important liberal efforts.

Anyone who supports tyranical control of the economy isnt a liberal by definition.

[northzax]

95. but what happens when the national systems we currently have

fail the localities? Say, making it impossible to obtain the Morning After Pill without a prescription? Wouldn't a nationalised system simply make politics the ultimate arbitrator of resource access and usage? how is that any more or less arbitrary than capitalism? You don't trust the Federal Government to make decisions about what should and what should not be a prescription medication, you really want them designing your cars? your house? your office? your insurance? your electric plant? seriously. And don't tell me they aren't relevant, yesterday you made perfectly clear that politics was interfering with the FDA, you think politics won't interfere with everything else?

[K-W]

97. The nation isnt the federal government, the nation is we the people.

I am not advocating a centralized command economy, just an economy that is controlled by and serves the people as equal citizens. Obviously we have to create institutions that make this possible and avoid the dangers of centralized power.

[northzax]

99. still, someone actually runs it, right?

someone makes the decisions, writes the checks, hires and fires people? who picks that person? a national referendum? a committee?

or are the citizens simply shareholders? we still need someone to run it, I certainly can't run a large company, I wouldn't want to make those decisions, someone else can, and every year, I get to vote on those people for all the companies I own part of.

so, who runs them? who picks the managers, sets the goals and is responsible for performance? and who picks those people?

[K-W]

102. I dont know that one person should run anything.

But yes, you are right, in order to create a democratic economy we would need to create democratic institutions and this would be challenging certainly, but the fact that we have yet to figure out how to create a democratic state wouldnt have been an excuse to keep Kings and Queens in power.

We can only move along imperfectly trying to make our society incrementally better and more democratic. But the first step is making that our goal, which very few people are willing to do.

[KC_25]

128. I have to say I am confused..

Do you want to nationalize private industry or not? If you nationalize all private industry are we not following in the footsteps of Cuba, the USSR etc? Even China is getting in on the market economy nowadays...

So do you want a market economy or a nationalized one?

[K-W]

130. Indeed.

Do you want to nationalize private industry or not?

Of course I do. Industry should serve the people or not exist.

If you nationalize all private industry are we not following in the footsteps of Cuba, the USSR etc?

No. You do realize that the US would never have been created if our founding fathers werent nationalists, right? You need to stop associating nationalism with authoritarianism the two are not the same.

Even China is getting in on the market economy nowadays...

China is becoming increasingly mercantilistic, if that is what you mean.

So do you want a market economy or a nationalized one?

Why cant I have both? Why cant we have an economy that serves the good of our nation that also contains markets? And how about some real markets, not markets controlled by industrial cartels.

[KC_25]

134. f you say so..but

Actually, our country was founded by captialistic white men, slave owners that were tired of paying taxes back to England. Those that signed the Declaration and Constitution were the wealthy elite.

If you want to nationalize private industry, you will need an authoritarian government to control it. How many people, wealthy or otherwise are going to stand by and let the government take their, or someone else's property? Not many. You will not convince me, or more than a very small percentage of Americans, that the government can control and run factories, farms, etc better than private citizens that have a vested interest in the success of whatever endeavor that they are involved in.
To most people, the next step following nationalization of private industry would be the nationalization of private property...

Im sorry but "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" only ensures that all are equally miserable.

[K-W]

141. You are missing the point.

The founding fathers founded a nation. They are very obviously nationalists. Nationalism is support of a nation it bears no other ideological connotations.

If you want to nationalize private industry, you will need an authoritarian government to control it. How many people, wealthy or otherwise are going to stand by and let the government take their, or someone else's property? Not many.

Lol, yah right. I can see the bankers lining up with shotguns now.

And you dont need an authoritarian government, just one with a police force.

I dont know what you think we are talking about, but we are talking about reforming the government and the laws governing a particular industry. Nobody is talking about anything authoritarian and nobody is coming to take your land.

You will not convince me, or more than a very small percentage of Americans, that the government can control and run factories, farms, etc better than private citizens that have a vested interest in the success of whatever endeavor that they are involved in.

That is assenine. Most factories and farms are not owned by the people who run them. Beurocracy is beurocracy the boobs in government are no less capable of running things than the boobs in the corporate boardroom.

But really that doesnt matter, because nobody is suggesting we let the government run anything. The only serious alternatives involve letting the workers control factories and farms.

And, by the way, the government does have a stake in the success of the things it runs.

To most people, the next step following nationalization of private industry would be the nationalization of private property...

Im not sure what exactly nationalizing private property would entail...you seem to be under the severely misguided impression that someone is talking about taking away your property.

I think you should remember that before nationalistic movements created republics, all of the things we now consider the government were private property too.

Im sorry but "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" only ensures that all are equally miserable.

Huh? Who said that on this thread?

[julianer]

132. It may well lay the golden egg

but it then stuffs it away in off-shore tax havens and hedge funds. $12 trillion in tax havens alone at the last count.

Excuse my maths but isn't that enough to make everyone a millionaire?

What is the point in this great amassing of wealth when half the world is starving?

How can the system that has created this obsenity be given responsibility to solve it? Obviously things are only going to get worse from here, unless we change.

[julianer]

23. Whether there is a currently

existing model or not is missing the point. It is saying 'only that which currently exist is possible' which is demonstrably silly. The problem with this is that you are restricting humanity to either:

A bureaucratic, central planned economy with limited democracy as in Cuba, or

An anarchic, unjust system that spreads poverty and war as in everywhere else.

Neither of these is good enough. We need to find an alternative that combines a greater efficiency than presently exists, so that the world can be fed, and a process centred on humanity and democracy.

Why on earth should this be beyond us? And who better to go through these sort of discussions than the left? I can't foresee the right holding a debate on the rational, human future of anything at all!

[leftofthedial]

20. eallen is appealing to history, not theory

hybrid, partially socialistic systems are very hard to manage and keep in balance, precisely because capitalism is so volatile. the managed sectors are constantly getting out of whack with the capitalist sectors.

Does this mean all or none? Total socialism or nothing? No. But it is a challenge. Converting wholesale to a 100% managed economy is an interesting concept, but it is not going to happen.

Nationalizing energy, transportation, insurance and the defense industries are essential first steps.

[eallen]

25. Yep. Capitalism is dynamic & constantly improving its business processes.

In my view, there is a significant difference between liberals, who believe that the government should regulate aspects of business, and should pay for certain social services, and socialists, who believe in government taking over production. For example, I suspect the US soon will have single-payor, government funded medical care, but I also think it would be catastrophic if the government were to take over the supply of medical care. The government's healthcare dollar will go much further, especially as time goes on, if private companies continue to compete for it. (The argument for government funding healthcare is not that government can supply insurance better, but that something provided to everyone is not insurance.)

[leftofthedial]

27. bullshit. capitalism is constantly improving only one thing

that is, delivering maximum financial reward to those in a position of power within the corporation

it is extremely volatile, because the corruption of those at the top ensures that stability is unlikely and also because it is slow to adapt. when external forces intrude on a capitalist system, chaos, massive displacement, "recession" and "depression" and unemployment ensues. Capitalism is a horrible and unsustainable system. Without MASSIVE regulation, it is good only at making a few unimaginably wealthy at the expense of the rest of the planet.

[eallen]

45. Ah. That must explain why things have changed so little.

And why what change has occurred came from outside the capitalist economies.

Again, I suggest a modicum of history.

:hippie:

[leftofthedial]

133. a couple of depressions every century

unceasing war

Two, now perhaps three World Wars begun by and among capitalist countries

the ruthless exploitation to the point of exhaustion of mineral, petroleum and agricultural resources, with disastrous, perhaps irreversible environmental consequence

the ceaseless concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer, along with the attendant rise of multinational corporations, while more an more people live in poverty without the basics of civilized life

there is the tip of the iceberg on your history

[K-W]

31. Liberalism does not mean economic control by the wealthy.

The position you are articulating isnt even remotely liberal.

[eallen]

48. And the liberal nations without a capitalist economy are...?

I will continue using the term "liberal" in a sense that has some tie to liberal history.

:hippie:

[K-W]

51. You are using the term "liberal" in a way that spits in history's face.

Liberalism is self-government. You are trying to argue that the idea that the economy should not be controlled by the people but should instead by controlled by the wealthy is liberal. That is the exact opposite of liberal.

[eallen]

61. Nay. I use it in tradition of Locke, Jefferson, Dewey, and Rawls.

You're the one who seems to confuse liberalism with socialism. As a matter of history, these are two very different ideas and movements. Feel free to lambast me as a liberal. That happens to me all the time. But don't insist that because I'm a liberal, I must be a socialist, or that if I'm not a socialist, I can't be a liberal. I'm not buying that line.

:hippie:

[K-W]

63. I have no interest in playing the label game.

Your argument that an economy controlled by the wealthy is in line with liberalism or the philosophers you mention is absurd.

I never suggested you had to be socialist. I dont know why you feel the need to resort to such rhetorical nonsense.

If you were a liberal, you would support a democratized economy, not an economy controlled by wealthy elites.

[eallen]

70. That means most liberals in modern history weren't liberal in your view.

If no one who supports capitalism, and hence inequality of wealth, can count as a liberal, then that rules out Locke, Mills, Jefferson, Lincoln, Rawls, Dewey, FDR, JFK, and most others who have carried the liberal tag throughout history. Yeah, I know. You're not much fond of history, and actual examples. Maybe it's not just my liberalism you dislike, but also my empiricism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

:hippie:

[K-W]

73. You think those people supported the inequality of wealth?

What on gods green earth are you talking about?

And, btw, Capitalism isnt the inequality of wealth, so even if these people did support it, it wouldnt prove your point.

[eallen]

80. Capitalism guarantees inequality of wealth.

Most any economist from Smith, on through Marx, down to Keynes and Stiglitz can explain that consequence. If you know any economist or philosopher who thinks there is a variety of capitalism that doesn't lead to wealth inequality, I'd like to hear about it.

So yes, purely as a matter of logic, everyone who supports capitalism supports inequality of wealth. Everyone I listed was educated enough to realize that. Of course, that's not why liberals support capitalism. We support it for quite different reason, and take inequality of wealth as simply a necessary consequent to that.

And stop sounding so amazed. I'm not saying anything surprising here. You're the one who is trying to make liberalism disappear, turning all liberals into social democrats, if they're to be good enough to keep the label. That misreading of history overlooks the vast number of writers, economists, philosophers and politicians who actually were liberal.

[K-W]

86. Its funny you should mention logic.

So you claim earlier that all these liberals were capitalists because they support the inequality of wealth which is capitalism.

I challenge the claim that they supported inequality and the claim that inequality is capitalism.

You then argue that capitalism must lead to inequality, and therefore all supporters of capitalism support inequality.

Weeeeeee!

First off, just because capitalism must lead to inequality doesn mean that all supporters of capitalism support inequality. It might be seen as an undesired side effect.

Secondly, your proof that Liberals supported capitalism was that they supported inequality and your proof that they supported inequality is that they supported capitalism. That is a circular argument par excellance.

Liberal philosophy supports self-governance. Not governance by the wealthy. It is literally impossible for a supporter of plutocratic governance to be a liberal, at least in that respect.

[eallen]

89. My claims are quite different from what you try to make them.

"Your proof that Liberals supported capitalism was that they supported inequality."

Nope. I never said that.

My claim was very different: that as a matter of history, liberalism included support for capitalism. I didn't see any point in arguing over why that was the case, until we could at least agree that it was the case. The mode of my argument was to distinguish liberalism from anti-capitalist philosophies, such as socialism and social democracy, and also to list a bunch of recognizable liberals, all of whom supported capitalism. Would you like me to list some more?

You're wanting to go off and spin arguments on rhetoric alone. Being an empirical fellow, I like arguments that have some grounding in facts. Liberalism has a fairly established history at this point. If you want to argue that liberals don't support capitalism, please begin by naming names of those that did not, and by explaining why the ones I named shouldn't be viewed as part of the major liberal current.

"Just because capitalism must lead to inequality doesn mean that all supporters of capitalism support inequality."

I made myself very clear, I thought, when I explained that people who support capitalism rarely do so because it causes wealth inequality, but for other reasons.

[K-W]

91. I guess you are right, you never even tried to prove your claims.

"Your proof that Liberals supported capitalism was that they supported inequality."

Nope. I never said that.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I read it thinking you were providing proof and obviously misread.

My claim was very different: that as a matter of history, liberalism included support for capitalism.

Right, a claim which you have yet to support.

The mode of my argument was to distinguish liberalism from anti-capitalist philosophies, such as socialism and social democracy, and also to list a bunch of recognizable liberals, all of whom supported capitalism. Would you like me to list some more?

Like I said, I am not interested in playing games with labels. So you can destinguish all you want, Im not biting.

All of those people didnt support capitalism, firstly. Secondly, even if they did, that isnt proof that support for capitalism is liberal. Lots of liberals owned slaves, that doesnt make slavery liberal.

You're wanting to go off and spin arguments on rhetoric alone. Being an empirical fellow, I like arguments that have some grounding in facts. Liberalism has a fairly established history at this point. If you want to argue that liberals don't support capitalism, please begin by naming names of those that did not, and by explaining why the ones I named shouldn't be viewed as part of the major liberal current.

I never argued that liberals dont support capitalism. Certainly plenty of people who called themselves liberals have supported capitalism. I argued that supporting captalism is not in itself liberal, because the basic features of capitalism are in direct contradiction to the basic features of liberalism. IE self governance versus governance based on wealth.

I made myself very clear, I thought, when I explained that people who support capitalism rarely do so because it causes wealth inequality, but for other reasons.

This is what you wrote:
"So yes, purely as a matter of logic, everyone who supports capitalism supports inequality of wealth. "

Which is totally bogus as I explained earlier. But I will use an example.

Lets say we have a horrible disease, and a new treatment is invented, but the treatment also causes baldness.

Now if I support the treatment, it doesnt logically mean that I support baldness.

[eallen]

100. Which of those liberals did not support capitalism?

"All of those people didnt support capitalism, firstly."

Really? Which ones did not?

"I never argued that liberals dont support capitalism. Certainly plenty of people who called themselves liberals have supported capitalism. I argued that supporting captalism is not in itself liberal, because the basic features of capitalism are in direct contradiction to the basic features of liberalism. IE self governance versus governance based on wealth."

Liberals have a different view of self-governance from you. If you were to read some liberals on their political views, you would find that they support capitalism precisely because it affords a kind of freedom that they value. I suggest starting with Locke. When you move on to modern liberals like Rawls, you will see that they argue for putting a floor under those who lose in a capitalist society, but don't propose to do away with it. This theme is an integral part of liberalism. You disagree with it. Clearly. I don't understand, though, why you are trying to turn liberalism into something it is not. Historically, socialists often have criticized liberalism on the grounds either (a) that liberals prolong capitalism, by supporting social programs that ameliorate its problems, and/or (b) that liberals often are bourgeosie, who support a capitalist system in return for only a slightly advantageous position over the common laborer. I understand both of those criticisms. I don't understand the pretense that liberalism is a variety of socialism. Not only does that erase liberalism's history, it also erases that part of socialism's history that was a reaction against liberalism!

"This is what you wrote: 'So yes, purely as a matter of logic, everyone who supports capitalism supports inequality of wealth.' Which is totally bogus as I explained earlier. But I will use an example. Lets say we have a horrible disease, and a new treatment is invented, but the treatment also causes baldness. Now if I support the treatment, it doesnt logically mean that I support baldness."

You're quibbling over the meaning of "support," and chopping up what I wrote as if I hadn't made myself clear in the next sentence. You can do better than that. For the record, here is what I wrote, in context:

"So yes, purely as a matter of logic, everyone who supports capitalism supports inequality of wealth. Everyone I listed was educated enough to realize that. Of course, that's not why liberals support capitalism. We support it for quite different reason, and take inequality of wealth as simply a necessary consequent to that."

[K-W]

104. You have provided no evidence that they support it.

Until you do I see no need to provide evidence to refute it. And by the way, supporting capitalism in relationship to other alternatives, or as a means to an end, isnt the same as blankly supporting capitalism.

Just because liberals have in the past made the calculaton that capitalism was preferable to its alternatives does not mean that supporting captalism is a liberal value.

You are also getting terribly caught up in stupid labels. You are confusing the philosophy of liberalism with those people throughout history who have identified themselves as liberals. Even though in many cases both the liberals and thier opponants derived thier beliefs from classical liberalism.

You're quibbling over the meaning of "support," and chopping up what I wrote as if I hadn't made myself clear in the next sentence. You can do better than that. For the record, here is what I wrote, in context:

How am I quibbling exactly? I am using the dictionary defintion of the word support, which meaning were you using? And nothing in your next sentance changes the meaning of this statement and your poor use of logic.

[sintax]

103. Capitalism is codified

serfdom with neoclassicical (or liberal) proponents validating this style of colossal banditry. capitalism privatizes the wealth and socializes the burdens while ignoring any ecological consequences (externalizing the pollution as some abstract consequence). It's easy to see capitalism is a wrecking ball, almost all of the Earth is 'capitalized', almost all of the Earth is in a state of ecological meltdown.

Theories and abstractions from the Western Habit of Mind i.e. Smith, Locke and their brethren only to cloud the issues and turn the discussion inwards into abstractions.

Better to look out your window.

If you want to see the glories of capitalism go to East St. Louis or to the clearcuts in Tiller, Oregon or to etc.

As an aside Marxism and capitalism spring from the same modality, industrialism. One just has a better concept of sharing. Both destroy the land.

[Selatius]

49. You set up a strawman argument

You assume that all socialists naturally support state socialism, but that is far from the case. You neglect the school of thought under socialism that advocates a form of socialism outside the state or some highly centralized decision-making structure. With the socialism you speak of, all we would be doing is replacing private owners of the means of production with bureaucrats instead.

"Meet your new boss! Same as the old one!"

The argument that bureaucrats can be removed when they abuse power is irrelevant. There will be abuses not from capitalists instead but bureaucrats, and I have not seen one argument from state socialists that could adequately address such a threat aside from "electing new leaders," and I don't buy that one because we elect poor ones under the current economic order. Why would it be different under any other? Human greed will still exist in socialist societies; it's just that greed itself won't be encouraged as a means of getting ahead, building the better mousetrap, or finding the cure for cancer for the sake of patenting it and making a profit off it by charging all of humanity a fee for the privilege, not the right, to have access to what you own.

If you ask me, the economy rightly belongs to the US people, not to a select class of owners who determines what gets produced, how much is produced, how many workers get to produce it, and how much (or how little) to pay the workers. However, I'd qualify the statement by stating that socialism can only come about when the people choose socialism. It cannot come from the state. People must be active participants in the economic decisions that affect them, not passive participants under state socialism. They must use their own heads and their own hands collectively to liberate themselves from the "capitalist wilderness."

If there is one thing I disagree with other socialists on this board, it is over how to get there, not the destination itself. I'm a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist or a member of any other school of socialism that advocates change through highly centralized decision-making structures (the state) democratic or otherwise. You can also call me an anarcho-socialist or even a liberal socialist or a left libertarian.

[eallen]

59. The libertarian socialists and right-wing libertarian share a fallacy.

Both assume that the economic system they imagine can exist without a legal framework that supports them, and without a government to maintain that. One question I repeatedly put to a friend who is libertarian socialist is what would prevent non-socialist defection, whenever there was market opportunity for that, which would be frequent. Would the workers at Syndic Zamora uniformly stay there, even when faced with an opportunity for higher income at a new company not run by syndicalist principle? More importantly, would they not buy goods and services from non-syndicalist organizations? Culture might keep one working at a syndic rather than a dreaded company. It's much harder to turn down cheap clothing or cheap cell phones or cheap PVRs, when all your friends have those. And without 100% compliance, nothing in an anarchy would prevent the development of other economic structures side-by-side the desired ones. Or even overwhelming the desired ones.

Relevant to this, it's important to note that there is no law in the US, or in most western nations, that forbids syndics. They are perfectly legal. In fact, because they could be run as non-profits, they have considerable tax and regulatory advantage over a company. But outside of a few communes, they are hard to find today.



He never did have

[Selatius]

92. It's not a fallacy, at least in my opinion

Both assume that the economic system they imagine can exist without a legal framework that supports them, and without a government to maintain that.

When I say, "state," I mean a republican form of government, if you will. The US is a republic, for example, where people elect leaders to a full-time job to write laws and make the decisions. If the people do not like what they are doing, then they elect new leaders. That's how it works in Europe and the US. When I say, "state," I mean centralized decision-making structures such as the federal government where a few make the decisions for everyone else.

However, a more libertarian form of governance would be more direct in nature. Libertarian socialism would advocate not just socialism as an economic system but also direct action or direct involvement in the decision-making process at the local level both in a political and economic sense. With several communities, the opportunities would expand as a coalition could be formed of several communities. The more people are involved, the greater the possibilities for division of labor and specialization.

A tyranny of the majority could result where minority rights are trampled upon. This is a danger, but this is also true of any republican form of government as well. As a result, it would be foolish not to advocate education as well as popular organization to fight things such as racism or bigotry. This is why the Bill of Rights was inserted into the US Constitution, and this is why things such as the Civil Rights Acts were passed. If this was true of republican forms of governance, then parallels could be had with more direct forms of governance.

tne question I repeatedly put to a friend who is libertarian socialist is what would prevent non-socialist defection, whenever there was market opportunity for that, which would be frequent.

Ultimately, it boils down to free will. Socialism cannot be forced on anyone. This is why I'm not a fan of state socialism. What I advocate has also been termed "voluntary socialism" or "laissez-faire socialism" that comes about not by order or decree by the state or any central authority but by the people themselves. Nothing precludes people from choosing to leave or enter into such an arrangement. You don't get this with state socialism. You are compelled to participate regardless if you agree with it or not.

This goes back to the arguments between Marx and Bakunin over how socialism should come about with the latter once stating that if a revolution was won by a Marxist revolutionary party to take control over existing decision-making structures, the regime would end up as oppressive and authoritarian as the old regime it replaced, and history seems to have proven Bakunin right. Bakunin's objections to Marx arose primarily over Marx' insistence on winning power within the state in order to bring about socialism. Bakunin hated these methods and argued on the grounds that historically the state (concentrated decision-making structures) has been a tool of oppression and that the best way to do it is for people to do it themselves collectively rather than give power to a select few to make decisions for them.

However, the reason why there are libertarian socialists is that there are people who would rather have more than one option when they go out looking to make a living, as opposed to only entering into labor contracts with the owners of the means of production who may or may not necessarily care about your well-being beyond turning a profit for himself or herself. If you want to enter into the former, no one is stopping you, but the only wish is that you also have the option to choose the latter as well if you so desire.

A right-libertarian, on the other hand, would only give you one option, not two. The big difference is instead of having the state enforce property law, which is the basis of capitalism (ownership over resources and the means of production), private firms would do it themselves through hired hands (i.e. guards), which would then hit upon the issue of a small number of people enforcing their control over the resources that everybody needs to survive through force.

I couldn't say libertarian socialism is the final solution to humanities problems. I'm not so proud and foolish to make such a judgment or predictions. For those who are dissatisfied though with the current economic order, I'd offer it as an alternative. Would I say it is THE way? I couldn't tell you, but it seems worth trying just to see what the answer is. Pushing boundaries, asking questions--these are worthy endeavors. It has been tried in the past, most notably during the Spanish Civil War. The only reason it ended was through direct foreign interference at the hands of Nazi Germany and the USSR who both routinely worked to kill off libertarian socialists, as documented by many including George Orwell. Perhaps the most visible example today would undoubtedly be the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico and lesser known movements.

[eallen]

105. What is the difference between you and the right-wing anarchist?

"However, the reason why there are libertarian socialists is that there are people who would rather have more than one option when they go out looking to make a living, as opposed to only entering into labor contracts with the owners of the means of production who may or may not necessarily care about your well-being beyond turning a profit for himself or herself. If you want to enter into the former, no one is stopping you, but the only wish is that you also have the option to choose the latter as well if you so desire."

Again, I'm going to point out that no law prevents the creation of syndics. Here in the US. Now. And there are in fact some cooperative businesses. The question is, why aren't there more of them?

"A right-libertarian, on the other hand, would only give you one option, not two."

How so? They might predict how most businesses would be organized. But until the Glorious Revolution ushers in an anarchy, it's all just theory.

"The big difference is instead of having the state enforce property law, which is the basis of capitalism (ownership over resources and the means of production), private firms would do it themselves through hired hands (i.e. guards), which would then hit upon the issue of a small number of people enforcing their control over the resources that everybody needs to survive through force."

In an anarchy, would syndics and cooperatives not also protect their property? How would that differ from a corporation organized, say, as an equity firm, protecting theirs?

[Selatius]

143. The issue is education

Again, I'm going to point out that no law prevents the creation of syndics. Here in the US. Now. And there are in fact some cooperative businesses. The question is, why aren't there more of them?

Most people don't know what a co-op is in the US, much less any idea of what socialism is. How could there be more if people don't know about it? This isn't taught very much at all in most schools in the US. Also, there are questions over efficiency in for-profit co-ops.

How so? They might predict how most businesses would be organized. But until the Glorious Revolution ushers in an anarchy, it's all just theory.

There are historical examples of left-libertarian movements throughout the 20th century, most of them violently crushed by outside forces. (Again, Spanish Civil War being cited as an example) It's not all theory; some of it had been put into practice in order to reveal unseen problems, which could then be addressed, and the fact that something is only theory isn't necessarily a bad thing, for anyone would only have to cite self-determination as a theory of governance prior to the Age of Enlightenment, for instance.

In an anarchy, would syndics and cooperatives not also protect their property? How would that differ from a corporation organized, say, as an equity firm, protecting theirs?

Ultimately, the means of production and the resources people need to survive would be administered in a democratic manner, as direct as possible in as decentralized manner as possible, imho. Ideally, this is how it would be done in any socialist commune, as opposed to compulsory collectivization under a dictatorship or a vanguard revolutionary party that has taken over the organs of the traditional state and that claims to know what's best for the people.

Most co-ops I am aware of exist much like a corporation does. The point is to spread out liability in the current environment and reduce the individual risks associated with business. A corporation can be organized according to co-operative principles, and some of them are. A great deal of these co-ops in the US are for-profit entities, but I wouldn't say all are. For instance, a utility co-op can exist so that the costs of running a power station (maintenance, upgrades, etc.) are shared among those who are serviced by that power station. (It exists out of mutualism, not for a profit)

Ultimately, the for-profit ones behave the same way as any other capitalist enterprise in that they, as an entity taken as a whole, control what capital it happens to acquire and charge people a fee for the privilege of using the capital that the co-op controls. It's just the workers in such a co-op are better able to determine the distribution of profits within such a structure and are better able to determine the decisions regarding production compared to a traditional corporation or LLC where the decisions rest in the hands of a relatively few people in the board of directors and the chief executives and the major shareholders who have voting power, as opposed to shareholders who hold stock with no voting power.

In a socialist commune organized along highly democratic principles, there wouldn't be a need for anyone inside such a commune to protect their property if all involved agreed to look after one another. The purpose of such a commune is the mutual survival and benefit of all involved in that commune. (Again, mutualism) It's relationship with other communes could be one built on mutual cooperation and the sharing of resources as well as skills as opposed to a more adversarial relationship in a traditional market where one entity guards its assets from other entities and competes with others for those assets within a traditional free-market environment. Mutualism is not something offered by right-libertarians because it contradicts the idea of free-market competition. Otherwise, they wouldn't be rightwing.

The greatest need for protection would arise generally when outside forces try to attack and dismantle the communes to reassert control over the resources, a necessary prerequisite for the reimposition of an economy based on capitalism as opposed to mutualism. This is how the anarchic communes were brought to an end in Spain. Ironically, most of it was done by communists aligned with the USSR, not to mention those aligned with the fascists such as Franco and Hitler. Neither could tolerate autonomous communes because it represented something they couldn't control.

[Darranar]

79. "Government" and "people" are different things...

A socialist believes that the means of production should be put under popular control, in one form or another.

Decentralized socialism is probably the best system anyone has come up with so far, and the system I support.

Put the people actually affected by certain economic decisions in charge of those economic decisions. That is the essence.

[Selatius]

93. I generally support what you say

You're not standing alone out there in the world with these ideas.

[K-W]

39. We have a 100% managed economy.

The issue is, who is managing it and how is it being managed.

[leftofthedial]

135. as a whole it is not managed

all its parts are managed, frequently in opposition to one another.

overall, it is more chaos and inefficiency than any sytem in the history of the Earth

it also ensures the occasional collapse of entire segments of the economy, which creates displacement on a massive scale.

[K-W]

142. Yes it is.

You are missing something important, the people who manage it dont neccessarily care if entire segments of the economy collapse if thats what it takes to cover thier asses. They dont judge the economy based on its overall health, they judge it based on thier pocket books.

The chaos and ineffeciency are a result of the profiteering.

Because of the nature of our economy, there is only a loose association of elites who use a variety of institutions, thier control isnt great, and they arent great at controlling things. In the end the profit motive drives them and the world comes out looking like crap because they dont care.

[JanMichael]

19. I agree, Democratise the Economy. Right now a super-minority controls...

....just about everything and we're powerless to do anything about it.

What's really fucked up is how we really don't have much of a democratised political system either.

Basically what I mean is when I turn on a light in my home I don't think some jackass that inherited a power company should be getting richer off of it.

Same with water.

[Emendator]

106. Ridiculous

And just who determines what is in "the public interest"? You? Or people who think like you? Or some sort of self-styled elite? The free market works. Billions of brains will always be smarter than a few brains. The only way socialism can possibly work at all is for economic growth and production to precede redistribution. If redistribution is the higher priority, you choke off a society's economic potential and end up starving millions to death. No thanks.

[K-W]

110. You think self government is rediculous? EOM

[Emendator]

114. What you advocate

is not self government. With the elimination of private property, you destroy self government. Even in a democracy, the government isn't "us". You advocate an elite trying to organize society according to its own particular whims. That is tyranny. You're out to lunch and those who advocate your views are so numerically insignificant, that it's not even worth a discussion. The matter has been settled historically. China and all of the other countries successfully moving out of the third world are not doing what you advocate. They're going the other way. There's no sense in rehashing the debate that you had below with Walt Starr. Good day.

[K-W]

115. Actually self government is the only thing I have advocated.

I have advocated nothing else in your post. It must be easy to think you are right when you make up your opponants position, huh?

I had no debate with Walt Starr, he refused to define his terminology.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. So, you want Bush and Congress in charge of your automobile insurance?

:shrug:

[KansDem]

4. No, I want the auto insurance agent who tried to convince me...

...that one of the low-ball figures quoted to replace my car was an accurate reflection of I should expect to pay, even though the car the quote was taken from was for sale in some farm field 500 miles away. Like I'm going to take the money, drive 500 miles to rat-infested car rusting in a field of hay, and buy it. Yeah, that's the kind of person I want running the auto insurance industry!

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. You think that Bush and Congress would give you a more fair deal?

:shrug:

[KansDem]

78. Bush and Congress won't give me a more fair deal...

Because Bush and Congress are a corporate entity, just like the agent who tried to justify low balling the worth of my car with such convoluted logic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. So, nationalizing the industry would not make things better

[KansDem]

88. Sure, once we got corporate influence out of government...

You're supposing the present government is the quintessential example of what government was meant to be. I say it isn't, based on its need to steal the election of 2000 (and 2004), its need to for secrecy (Cheney's energy papers, new Abu Graib photos, Bush's TANG records, etc), its need to obfuscate (Sen. Robert's "need" to investigate the investigator (Fitzgerald) before he indicts them all). Government in a democracy is answerable to the people, not a few hacks hellbent on establish a corpocracy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. Bush will be in charge for the next 3 1/2 years

And if someone like him can come to power it is certianly possible that someone else like him could in the future.

[KansDem]

107. Not if democratic principles are adhered to...

The election of 2000 was a farce and the election of 2004 stolen, albeit a bit more subtly than 2000. We don't have a government based on democratic principles, therefore, we need to make sure such a perversion of democracy such as the present "government" never happens again. Once such way would be to reduce and eliminate corporate ownership of the peoples' business, essentially the crux of this thread subject.

[marmar]

5. I don't think you'll have to worry about Bush nationalizing anything...

he's never going to do it. If anything, he might sell portions of the U.S. government's operation to corporations.
But I think there's definitely something to be said for public corporations. Often (ie as in health care) they function more efficiently than private ones, and are less likely to cut massive numbers of jobs in a recession because profit margins are not their motivation.

[K-W]

10. All corporations are supposed to be public corporations.

Corporations were originally chartered to serve a public good. They were under the control of state governments and were very restricted in thier actions and responsible to the governments. Over time these organizations have been legally transformed into semi-soveriegn governments that own and manage large swaths of our society.

It is an end run around the constitution. As the people started taking more and more control over the government, the elites shifted power to private organizations, and through legal distortions and propaganda they have managed to weaken and in some cases destroy any possibility of the people using thier votes to take control of thier own economy.

[Thrasybulus]

11. I agree with Freddie

We need more decentralization not more power accruing to the government, although the government has a crucial oversight role.

I believe many of our present difficulties stem from huge corporations amassing ever more power and using that power to smother competition through legal and political means.

Not that some industries might not benefit from nationalization, railroads come to mind, but the divestiture of conglomerates would go a long way in breaking the stranglehold big money plays in politics as there would be more sources of revenue from more diverse smaller businesses.

[Telly Savalas]

127. I can't speak for the OP...

but I'd feel a bit more comfortable if Bush and Congress were to hire some actuaries to run the program for them. A number of Canadian provinces public auto insurance and it works quite well.

[Joanne98]

8. Only the bankrupt or corrupt ones. Oops, that's all of them. lol

[julianer]

12. The question is - under what form?

If we return to the old style nationalised industries that we had in the UK it won't be a solution. They were bureaucratic and managed in accordance with the needs of politicians, not the customers or the workers.

As a result they were underfunded, schlerotic, lacked capital investment, were unpopular because the service was bad, were easy targets for the private sector because they were damned hard to defend.

So we have to learn from that: funding shouldn't be dependent on government's political needs; management should be under the control of workers, users and the broader society in many forms. In short they should be democratic servants of the people.

Those should be the broad aims - service and democratic control - which could be rolled out to new industries as good working methods were developed.

[KansDem]

15. "In short they should be democratic servants of the people."

That's why I suggested "certain" industries. Mainly those whose products and services have become necessities in a democratic society. By controlling oil/gas and healthcare, private corporations have become the government. And they don't always act in the best interests of the citizens.

I don't mind in presence of capitalism in some areas of our economy, say, fast food for example. We don't need fast food to exist. But when we turn over the common good to a small cabal of capitalists, then we are not acting in the best interests of our nation.

As for auto insurance, well, since we are required by law to carry auto insurance, I included that one as well.

[eallen]

16. Auto insurance is a necessity, but autos are not?

[KansDem]

74. I lived in Europe for a few months...

The Europeans have a whole different take on mass transit. Their communities are built around mass transit, from the electric train that carries them from city to city to the electric trams that carry them around the city. Cars for them are more of a luxury item. I knew Europeans who didn't have driver's licenses, and who didn't want them. Mass transit was good enough for them. Here, we can suppose that cars are a luxury and not necessary, but the reality is much different. One could get by without a car. After all, it is not required by law to own a car, but once one is purchased, then auto insurance is mandatory by law.

[julianer]

17. Why shouldn't everyone decide

which industries should be in public ownership? An industry's workers, users and wider groups could decide for themselves. If you try to work to some sort of strategic or national plan you run the risk of ending up with the underperforming models of the past, as well as corruption if the decisions are made by individuals or small groups.

[Walt Starr]

22. In a word, no.

We should have a single payer on health care, but the industry itself should remain capitalized.

Capitalism works. Socialism and Communism have consistently failed.

[rockymountaindem]

24. Thanks for adding your voice of reason.

"Nationalize all industry". What a joke.

[julianer]

29. Capitalism works?

In what way can you say that capitalism works where the 'socialist' countries failed?

Are you judging by the number of people in poverty, in work, homeless? Or by the number of people who have excessive wealth? By the prevalence of disease, or by the number of cheap electronic goods people own (cheap because of appalling worker exploitation)?

Those sort of statements - this works, that fails - are really uninformative. If we have such poor imaginations that we can only choose between two failed systems we are all well and truly lost.

[Walt Starr]

34. Hmmmm, Soviet Russia fell iafter decades of communist rule

and after World War II, our capitalist society pushed a majority of people out of poverty, the first nation ever to do so.

[JanMichael]

65. It's worked splendidly in Haiti and a whole lot of other places like...

...South America, Central Asia, and it's done a bang-up fucking job in the Former Soviet Union, eh? That's been a bloody disaster. Read your Stiglitz for some background on how badly the chief Capitalist tools of destruction the IMF and World Bank screw nations for OUR benefit.

Using the US as a benchmark is the ugliest of mistakes to make when assessing the "ggod" or "bad" development of nationstates.

Try Apples to Apples, not Oranges to Bananas.

Also give the UN Human Development Report a looksy. Something funny occurs near the end of the High Development nations...

[julianer]

129. Did you bother to read

what I wrote? There is little point in engaging in discussion otherwise.

[Algorem]

33. Yeah,it's working out great.

[Walt Starr]

35. It sure is, our capitalist system for the first time in history

had a majority of people who were not living in poverty.

We are the first nation ever to accomplish that, and it is a direct result of capitalism.

[Algorem]

40. MMMM!Kool Aid!

[Walt Starr]

42. Sounds to me like you're sure drinking it.

Socialism is a failed system.

[K-W]

36. Walt, all of your posts here are based on vast oversimplifications

and overgeneralizations of history and government.

You are drawing these rediculous generalized conclusions about the world and then acting as if they were natural laws.

[Walt Starr]

41. Okay, name an industry that would be better served by the government

Just one.

You can't.

Even mail delivery is accomplished better by the private sector.

About the only thing a government can do better than the private sector is make war.

[K-W]

46. You are still just making broad generalizations. EOM

[Walt Starr]

60. Answer the question. n/t

[K-W]

64. Give me a question that isnt based on broad generlizations. EOM

[Walt Starr]

67. can you one industry that can be run better by the government, and if so

please, what is it?

[K-W]

69. That is the same question.

I dont know what exactly 'the government' is. Nor do I know what being "run by the government" means.

These are just meaningless generalizations meant to charecterize all alternative economic ideas as advocating a centralized authoritarian control economy.

[Walt Starr]

72. Oh, I getcha

You can't answer a simple question.

Got it.

[K-W]

75. No, I cant answer a meaningless question.

I have asked you to define the terms in your question, I see that you choose instead to flame me.

[Walt Starr]

77. WTF was meaningless about it?

The OP asked if it was time for the government to run certain industries instead of the private sector. I asked you to name one industry the government could run better than the private sector.

You chose not to answer.

Pretty simple.

[K-W]

82. As I already explained, it was based on generalizations

Like "the government" "private sector" etc. Since these terms do not refer to any actual organization, but are in fact broad categories used to crudely devide what is a complex integrated system, I cannot possibly answer your question.

I would be more than happy to discuss actual specific issues of governance.

[Walt Starr]

83. Then the discussion ends here

Because it is impossible to disucss anything under the terms you have provided.

[K-W]

87. So you are only capable of discussing broad generalizations?

That is odd.

I dont really see what is stopping you from discussing reality.

[wuushew]

139. Numerous public utilities have been successfully government run

Water, city sanitation, and electrical generation are all quite successfully run at cost by local and state governments. They operate on the same principals that for profit organizations do except the rate they charge customers only covers costs, not unnecessary profits above and beyond capital improvements that go into shareholders pockets.

The Tennessee Valley Authority was a massive improvement in the ability for that impoverished region to provide itself with electricity. The great damn and irrigation projects of the west were also government sponsored.

Bureaucracy in itself is not a thing to be feared. If the good or service can be quantified and described as a complex engineering challenge of which the government and the people themselves are up to the challenge such a project should be undertaken. All the failures you describe in command economies result from sheer impossibility of a central decision authority to deal with the dynamism of millions of individuals consumer wants and then components involved in the satiation of those wants.

Don't fool yourself there is a ton of waste in capitalism as small businesses fail and continuously close shop. The numerous unnecessary duplication of production on scattered small scales is wasteful of money, human effort, land and energy but it is the only thing that can react quickly enough to the fickle demand of society. Central planning does not provide the shotgun effect of ideas that an entrepreneur does.

A hundred inventors acting independently may discover something much more marketable than a consolidated facility but only one out of that 99 may make any money from it. Just think about the waste. Things that can enjoy economies of scale and run in a non-profit manner should do so.

[woo me with science]

62. wow, what a thoughtful and reasoned response....

Sort of like the scintillating "kool aid" response up above. You guys have to try harder.

[K-W]

66. Last time I checked,

It didnt take a great deal of thought or reason to identify broad generalizations.

[idlisambar]

68. A couple

health insurance/ health care funding: The Medicare program is generally more efficient in terms of reduced overhead than private insurance, not to mention the savings that can be had from not paying high salaries to upper management and not having to show returns to investors.

I am not fully convinced on this one but...
Pharmaceuticals: Most of the basic pharmaceuticals research is already done with public funding, so it is not hard to imagine a different industrial setup in which private "generics" compete with each other in the manufacture of drugs derived from public funding. the advantage of such an arrangement would be the elimination of wasteful marketing expenditures, and the savings to be had from not having to show large profits to investors -- both serious expenses in the very profitable pharmaceuticals industry.

[Walt Starr]

81. I would maintain that an increased competiveness in both

would result in a far more efficient delivery of services than any governmental intervention ever could.

[idlisambar]

90. on what basis

I would suggest that in each of these cases the benefits of competition are less than the costs -- waste in marketing, duplication of research, the need to satisfy investors with a return.

If you could make an argument for why competition would help in health insurance, for example, I would like to hear it. It seems a weak case to me given that empirically government run health insurance has been shown to be less wasteful whether you examine Medicare or other state run health care systems.

[northzax]

98. I'll quibble there

Mail delivery as a flat rate, national system is best handled by the government. FedEx and UPS charge several times the same rate, for the same service. Think about it for a second, for 37 cents, I can mail a letter to any address in the United States and have it get there in, for the most part less than 4 working days. I can guarantee it will get there in 3, with a signed confirmation, for less than 4 bucks. no private corporation can do that for less than 12. And they won't send stuff to the most remote locations for the same fee as sending it to New York City. It costs more to send a letter from Berlin to Bonn than it does from Boston to Honolulu, and it takes the same amount of time. For all it's faults, the USPS is brilliant.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

137. Sorry but email delivery was accomplished by the federal govt with YOUR

money then handed off to the private sector...any other version is a lie

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

138. Sorry but email delivery was accomplished by the federal govt with YOUR

money then handed off to the private sector...any other version is a lie

[Cleita]

28. I always thought extraction industries, and that includes oil, should

be nationalized. It seems to me that the products that come from the earth and sea belong to everyone not just Exxon, and Chevron. Some local pundit brought up the point that in California, the coast of the Pacific Ocean belongs to everyone according to California laws, therefore, how can oil companies make claim to the oil if they start drilling offshore again?

I think all mining should be government operated (not outsourced) and the proceeds put into social programs to benefit underclasses, children and elderly. I think it would be easier to legislate for ecological and safety concerns as well, since the government would be operating on a non-profit basis.

[Mr.Green93]

30. nationalize the housing stock and farms

We can do away with homelessness now. There is more than enough available sq. footage to accommodate everyone. Nationalize food production and free us from the poisonous ADMs.

[KittyWampus]

32. Yes, Including Airlines

[redqueen]

37. I think it's long past time.

Not to say that these industries should be 100% public... but there should be a public version to counterbalance the private interests.

[bigtree]

38. look at the countries which have tried this

first there is central control over the industry, then an oligarchy assumes the head, all of the money gets siphoned off at the top and your country's economy is effectively in the control of a small cabal of militarists bent on holding on to the money, power and authority.

BTW, this is what has happened here in regard to our military industry. Now their patrons have infected all branches of government funnelling our money into their coffers as they stir up more conflict to justify their existence.

As loose and free as our industries are now to rape us and our land, there would be no stopping them if we gave them all of the mechanisms of government. Government would be about nothing but ensuring their survival, much like the game they play now in every conservative inituitive.

[tokenlib]

43. To speak of giving republicans heartburn...

Yes, to nationalizing health care, but if we ever get that far we will be fortunate. In other areas, keep private enterprise with the strings of regulation and oversight intact and effective. In other words, we need to reverse the trend and force business to be responsible. Also, we need a strong social safety net to protect the weak and unfortunate when the system fails them.

We also need gov't officials not beholden to industry, with strict punishment and intolerance for the crap that goes on with "the foxes guarding the henhouse"--that goes on these days.

[iconoclastNYC]

47. Middle ground.

There has to be a middle ground. The reason the private market competition won out is because competition does lead to effeciency. So having the government run an industry is not going to work.

We need to experiment with a hybred between a command/cooperative public economic system and private cooperation. I think the asian tigers and China have been leading in this regard.

[rman]

52. Place industry under control of a corrupt government? How would that help?

"Nationalized" will simply mean that it's formally under government control. But what point is there in placing industry under control of *this* government? Hardly anything would change, because this government is under control of corporations, as previous governments were, and as the next one will be unless some drastic changes are made.

The problem is the corruption. Once that is fixed industry can be properly regulated, and a bunch of things that have been privatized over the past decade or so can be un-privatized. Then we can start creating paradise on earth. Though i'm afraid it won't happen any time soon.

[K-W]

53. Compared to corporations,

the government is actully quite open and democratic.

Certainly we need to reform the government, but keeping the economy in the hands of a plutocracy isnt a better option. And of course it would be a giant mistake to give the centralized government control over the economy.

I really dont think anyobody is advocating that. The idea is to take the power out of the hands of centralized corporate power and put it into the hands of communities.

There is nothing wrong with independent organizations in the economy as long as those organizations are designed to be accountable to the public. If you changed nothing about companies except letting all workers vote for the board of directors as equals, you would have a massively more democratic and more nationalized organization without giving the government any power over it whatsoever.

Im not saying this would neccessarily work, but you need to think outside the box a bit.

[rman]

56. You've got to be kidding.

This is the most secretive and most undemocratic government ever (well, in a long, long time). How can you not see that?

[K-W]

58. Umm.

First off, no this is not the most secretive and most undemocratice government ever or in a long time. It isnt even the most udemocratic/secretive government in the world right now. You do realize we still have monarchies in this world right?

And regardless. The government is a hell of alot more democratic and open than corporations who dont even pretend they are supposed to be either.

[rman]

71. You are right in principal; corporations are completely undemocratic

by their very nature, and the current US government is not yet so undemocratic that it could get away with stealing an election in the face of a landslide victory for their opponent. I am not comparing it to just any government in the world ever, but to previous US governments and Western governments generally. What comes to mind as being worse is the WW2/McCarthyism era, and the Nazi regime.

I'm strongly in favor of having all of the commons 'under state control' - including the economy (strong economy is a common interest). But the whole point of that is to get things under control of the people. After all, contemporary democracy is about self-governance of the people by means of a transparent, representative government. Which we have *only* formally.

I have no problem thinking outside the box, but i also want to be practical.
The "lesser if two evils" argument isn't good enough for me in this case.

For all i know it is common wisdom (certainly on DU) that the government is largely controlled by corporations, has been for a long time and it hasn't gotten any better. Most government officials have a background in corporations, are backed by corporate money, and much to everyone's surprise they mostly favor corporate interests.

What point would there be in placing industry under control of a government that is controlled by industry?

I'd even argue that the above is almost a moot question, given that there is almost no distinction between politicians and business people - it's by and large one and the same old-boys-network (save a few exceptions).

[northzax]

101. there are many corporations

that are open and responsible. Yes, there are some that are not, Enron or worldcom for instance, but they are an aberration, not the rule. Corporations are accountable to the people who own them, the shareholders and their creditors. those that do not perform for those constituencies fail. maybe not this year, but much more quickly than non-accountable ones do. If you want to change what we expect out of corporations, what 'pleasing the owners' means, then go ahead, convince the owners that there is something else they should be looking for. Many people already do.

[K-W]

109. Wow.

There are many corporations that are open and responsible. Yes, there are some that are not, Enron or worldcom for instance, but they are an aberration, not the rule.
Bullshit

Corporations are accountable to the people who own them, the shareholders and their creditors. those that do not perform for those constituencies fail. maybe not this year, but much more quickly than non-accountable ones do.

Indeed. Corporations are accountable to owners. And thus serve the owners. Why on earth should I care if corporations succceed or fail at making rich people richer?

If you want to change what we expect out of corporations, what 'pleasing the owners' means, then go ahead, convince the owners that there is something else they should be looking for. Many people already do.

So your suggestion is that I treat the plutocrats as if they were legitimate and ask them to rule benevolently?

We might as well just have a King again.

[northzax]

112. so anyone who owns stock is a plutocrat?

anyone with a 401k, and IRA or a mutual fund is automatically a plutocrat? then there are 150,000,000 plutocrats in this country, that's a majority of the population.

[K-W]

113. I think you know full well who the plutocrats are.

Are you honestly trying to argue that all stockholders are equal in thier control over the economy? Do you really think joe average invested in a 401k has any say whatsoever in the policy of the company?

[northzax]

116. of course not

but then, the largest stockholders are groups of workers, CALPERS, CALSTRS, Federal TSP, Unions and other pension plans, not to mention mutual funds from 401ks and IRAs like mine. CALPERS is the single largest insitutional investor in the US, it has more money than anyone else. When CALPERS speaks, public companies listen. When they pull out of a company, it can collape (cough, enron, cough)

Those are the owners I am talking about, if regular people want to invest in 'green' or socially responsible companies, then those companies will make more money and be worth more. 25% of General Electic, the largest company in the world, is owned by small investors, people who own fewer than 200 shares of stock. 60% is held by insitutional investors and mutual funds, usually acting on behalf of small investors. That's a lot of power, if people are willing to organise it. Change those people's minds about what's valuable and GE will perform differently.

[K-W]

117. So in your reality corporate america is controlled by workers?

One man one vote, not one dollar one vote is real democracy.

The fact that workers can buy a small part of the system doesnt make it any less a system where wealth rules.

[northzax]

119. no, it's controlled, for the most part

by increasing shareholder value. and since a large minority of those shares are owned by workers, it is the workers who are complicit in the system. you don't like opaque companies? invest only in transparent ones. If everybody who makes less than $100,000/year refused to invest in companies that aren't transparent, that includes IRAs, mutual funds, and the like, then the system would reward the companies that are transparent. And more would become transparent to get access to the capital they need to survive.

seriously, don't buy insurance from opaque companies, don't bank with banks that invest in them. it would change.

the creation and acquisition of wealth is the reason we don't live in caves anymore. the only thing that needs to be done with it is to pressure the system to live up to higher expectations, reward those that do and punish those that fail.

Corporations, like countries, should not be democratic. It doesn't work. There are no 'democracies,' tyranny of the majority is as bad as tyranny of the minority, pure democracies have no safeguards, after all, one man one vote is the law of the land. Doesn't work. Someone still needs to be the executive, someone still needs to write, negotiate and pass rules and operating procedures. Someone needs to write the marketing plan. someone needs to approve that plan. As it is now, the management functions are theoretically filled by boards, elected by shareholders, who hire and fire the executive. And that usually works, over time.

The closest thing we have to one man one vote is the referendum process, that doesn't really work either, does it? Frankly, I don't want to vote on everything the government does, that's why I, in conjunction with my fellow citizens, hire professionals to do it for us. Just like I don't want to make every decision the CEO of every company I own stock in has to make. So I, in conjunction with my fellow shareholders, select the people who do. And it actually works better than democratically elected government. If I don't like the President, I'm stuck, I'm still a US citizen. If I don't like the new CEO of XYZ, inc, I can sell my stock and walk away. my call.

real democracy is mob rule, it doesn't work, it has never worked, it will never work. Even professional partnerships, once they get past three or so members, elect a senior partner to make the day to day decisions.

[K-W]

121. So you oppose democracy...

You are essentially arguing a facist position. That democracy doesnt work, and we must accept authoritarianism.

I, being a democrat, disagree.

[northzax]

126. no, I am arguing for representative democracy

pure democracy, one man, one vote, is untenable. can you really imagine every citizen in the US voting on every single thing the government does? why have a government at all then? I don't really care if my postman starts on the odd side or even side of the street, I trust him to make the decision himself. I don't really care who the ambassador to Micronesia is, for instance. but in a pure democracy, I would have to vote on each one of these issues.

you yourself said earlier than someone would need to run the nationalised companies, should we really all be involved in every aspect of management of everything? what's your opinion on whether or not Bob in accounting gets a raise this year? Steve? Jane? in a pure democracy you need to vote on all of those. As soon as you delegate it, you're into representative democracy and that is apparently facism.

so, what about bob's raise? There are 270,000,000 people in this country, and 100,000,000 businesses. and 3 million government employees. get ready, you need to decide if Stacy in administration is ordering paperclips from Staples or Office Depot. We'll vote at 8 pm sharp. to let her decide would be fascist, right?


By the way, I am working, in my spare time, on a government-funded project. should I buy the paper it's printed on from Office Depot or OfficeMax? you certainly can't delegate that decision to me, right? that wouldn't be democratic

[K-W]

131. It looked to me like you were arguing for corporate control.

One man one vote doesnt mean voting on every issue, it just means equal say on the issues that are voted on. I certainly never advocated voting on everything.

[Zorra]

54. Obviously. n/t

[The Revolution]

57. Yes

We should nationalize all industries eventually, but I think these are the best places to start:

Energy Industry - not just oil and gas, but the whole Energy industry, including power plants, electrical grids, etc.

Insurance Industry - Might as well nationalize all insurance. Social Security is an insurance program, and that works just fine (despite what bush says).

Health Care - Definatly. The whole industry, top to bottom. From the pharmacies that think they can deny people their medication, to the hospitals, and all the way up to the giant pharmaceutical companies.

Arms Industry - Private companies should not profit from war. GE makes weapons. GE owns NBC. NBC pushes for war in Iraq. Hmmmmm...

[jmowreader]

76. It's past time to nationalize the defense industry

I believe that any company who makes nothing that's not sold to the Department of Defense needs to belong to the Department of Defense. This would eliminate the profit margin in defense work.

Profit is good, but if you eliminated it from defense acquisition two things would happen. First, you'd make it less expensive to supply the army. And more important, eliminating the profit motive would also eliminate the reason to wage many wars.

[Redstone]

85. Sure, let's let the government run everything!

After all, look how efficient they are with Social Security, FNMA, Medicare, DOD, and so on!

Redstone

[JanMichael]

96. How about us BE the Governement and the Governement BE us?

And SS is fine with administration costs that smoke private insurance agencies.

[idlisambar]

120. what's your point?

First, Fannie Mae is private.

Second, Social Security and Medicare are actually pretty efficient --they don't require much overhead to manage. Medicare in particular is more efficient than private insurers.

The DOD is another, more complicated, story.

[TWiley]

108. Energy should be nationalized nt

[livinginphotographs]

111. I'd agree with health insurance, medical care, and utilities.

That seems like a healthy mix of public and private to me.

[SlipperySlope]

118. Road Construction

I think we should nationalize road construction, particularly for interstate highways.

[DaveJ]

123. Since roads are publicly funded

that means they're already nationalized right?

[SlipperySlope]

125. No - a lot of construction is done by private contractors.

[DaveJ]

122. Healthcare definitely

If someone gets sick and can't afford good insurance it should not put them into indentured servitude, which is the system we have now. It is mind boggling that people trust their healthcare to greedy slimebags that work at insurance agencies. People should also not have to worry about losing their homes but that problem is not as easily solved.

Everything else including cars are not really life's necessities.

[Lannes]

124. Deregulation has been a big source of our problems

Such as in the airline,pharmaceutical,energy,banking,cable,
telecommunications and few others Im sure Ive forgotten.
Its weakened labor unions,increased costs,pollution,increased monopolies among other problems.Look at all the deregultaion since Bush took office.Reagan really got the ball rolling.

Doesnt mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water.Re-regulating key industries and restoring competition,workers rights,environmental safeguards would be a better way toapproach the problem IMO.


Capitalism isnt perfect,thats for sure but I dont believe nationalizing
key industries is the answer.

[leftofthedial]

136. Capitalism and "free" markets are to economies

as steroids are to major league baseball

both provide illusory and inequitable rewards

[whosinpower]

140. Nationalize????

I live in Canada. Actually, I live in Saskatchewan - a social democratic province that has several publicly owned corporations. Every election cycle we fight tooth and nail to keep our corporations publicly owned and fight just as hard to keep competing companies from infringing.

Some would say this is unfair monopolies. I don't care. The bottom line is that we would never of been able to enjoy the level of service we currently have should other dilute the market. Sounds crazy and backwards to a market driven economic model. But, the truth is that no corporation would of gone to the lengths and COSTS of providing (as an example) telephone service to all rural communities in Saskatchewan. There are not enough of us for it to be profitable enough for those corporations in the first place.

There are less than 1 million of us in Saskatchewan - and yet we enjoy one of the highest levels and standards of telecommunication in the nation. Our auto insurance is also government run - and we enjoy the lowest rates Canada wide. Same goes for heating/electricity.

The system is not perfect. Our taxes are high. Any profits taken from the corporations go back into the general operating fund of the government. Our corporations work for us....see? They are mandated to make a profit - but those profits go directly back into government - which in turn translates into other social programs.

We face allot of outside pressure to privatize and open up our markets - but have thus far not had the public support for this endeavor. Our corporations include all liquer sales, auto insurance, telephone, heat/energy.

[DaveJ]

144. Just a note on your higher taxes

Although your taxes are high, I would guess that if you add together the amount we spend on taxes, plus health insurance, plus car insurance, and the cost of everything els you get for free, we are paying more. Why? Basically so we have to pay for the opulent lifestyles of executives running thousands of companies that could be consolidated into just a few. There are some companies that simply should be run for the purpose of the common good and nothing else.

I'm sorry about the rough time your having with the pressure to privatize. I hope it turns around someday.