It's time to start nationalizing shit - Chavez style.

[subsuelo]

Actually, it's way past time.

The government - OUR government (you know, the government of the people, for the people) needs to start nationalizing some of these fascist corporations. They clearly are NOT taking care of the environment, they're wrecking the economy, they're screwing over working people and robbing us for bailouts when THEY need it. Clearly, they do NOT have our best interests in mind, or *anyone else's*.

When profits are prioritized over people, disaster simply has to follow.

So it is really way past time to start nationalizing these corporations. Fuck 'em and fuck the blind ideologues that cry "no but it's communism!" or some ignorant bullshit. It's time to take over the corporations that are fucking all of us over, and let the people decide what's best.

Start with the ones that provide basic services.

Actually, start with Exxon-Mobil. That would be not in just our interests, but the environment and the interest of the rest of the world.

Cause honestly, we all (Americans) really should be held responsible at some point if we don't.

[lxlxlxl]

1. oh god no...

never going to happen, and this country is incapable of even reading your headline. your going to have to win at least a midterm before i trust this country to nationalize anything

[EFerrari]

2. Did you pick up your mail today?

[WinkyDink]

83. Soc. Sec. checks, too.

[Lyric]

3. I agree that businesses and industries that are vital to national security

ought to be owned and operated by the government, not by a company looking to profit.

Utilities, energy (including mining and drilling), pharmaceutical manufacturing, defense manufacturing, large-scale grain agriculture--all of these things are absolutely vital to our security, and should NOT be in private hands. Let the private market provide non-essential things like furniture, clothes, toys, cosmetics, whatever. The stuff we need to SURVIVE should not be floating around on the whims of a profit-driven, corner-cutting, shortcut-taking private producer.

[AnArmyVeteran]

39. Well put Lyric, and corporations have ZERO loyalty to countries...

Corporations, especially multinational corporations, are more powerful than governments. They have no borders. And they have the resources to purchase governments to do whatever they want them to do. Look at the oil disaster for example of how a paltry $500k switch could have prevented it if we had regulations.

Corporations couldn't care less if any country goes bankrupt or is destroyed. They will continue to operate with their mission driven by greed.

I agree with you 10000000%. We should nationalize everything that is crucial to our defense and our survival. A lot of people forget, but we the people ARE the government. WE need to own the resources of our nation. It belongs to ALL OF US, not just a handful of opportunistic criminals.

[L0oniX]

43. +1000

[DireStrike]

113. And health coverage.

And, increasingly, information access... that might be a ways off though.

[hack89]

117. So it is better for them to float around on the whims

of power-driven, corruptible, morally bankrupt politicians? Why is there any reason that they can run these industries in an efficient and honest manner?
Do you really want Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, and John Boehner running vital industries? Really? And wouldn't all those out of work capitalists be drawn to all that power and influence like bees to honey? Are you going to start banning certain people from running for office?

Politicians don't answer to the people now - how do you plan to change that minor detail?

[Codeine]

4. Nationalize? Yes. Chavez-style? No.

Replacing crony capitalism with crony socialism is a recipe for failure. There are much better ways to nationalize vital industries.

[Jkid]

126. Please, give us some examples.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Oh, gee, why nationalize them

Can't we just make big businesses small enough so they can drowned in the bathtub?

[bobbolink]

50. .

:rofl:

[earth mom]

6. Sadly and stupidly, Socialism is a dirty word to some-even here on DU.

Corporate America is the devil. The sooner people get that, the better we will all be.

[troubledamerican]

70. Time to privatize Interstate Freeways & public libraries & police departments, and

socialist water treatment facilities & the socialist U.S. currency system & every square inch of oxygen, so that we can prove once and for all that

ANTI-SOCIALISM & DEREGULATION DOESN'T WORK.

Because October 2008 wasn't a big enough lesson. Even here on DU.

[gravity]

7. Or you can just regulate them properly

[laughingliberal]

14. I believe that was the decision FDR made. Problem is the vultures start immediately

buying off legislators to destroy the regs about as fast as we get them in place. No, they're never going to behave in the best interests of society. Take 'em down.

[gravity]

22. Regulation has gone a long way since FDR

If it is a problem with regulation, increase the regulation. Increase political support to politicians who do favor regulation.

It is far easier than nationalizing industries, which would actually disrupt the economy even more.

[TBF]

24. Regulation doesn't work -

in a system in which lobbyists rule. Lip-service support for politicians will accomplish nothing vs. the funding they are getting from big business.

It won't work, it's all got to come down.

[gravity]

28. Regulation works

It is the lack of regulation which is the problem. Big business has always been against regulations, but there has been countless times in which their efforts have failed.

If you cant muster up the public support to increase regulation, you definitely won't be able to get the support for nationalization.

[William Z. Foster]

52. only in theory

Big business is against regulation, and sooner or later wins. Today they just buy all of our politicians and have their lawyers write the regulations, and have their representatives named to head the oversight agencies. If that does not demonstrate that regulation does not work, I don't know what would.

Yes, regulation WOULD work - "if only..." If only the capitalists did not have all of the power, so that they can eventually smash through any regulations. But that is a pretty big "if" - an insurmountable if.

Yeah, and if water wasn't wet I wouldn't need an umbrella when it was raining.

"Regulation" never tamed big business, organized Labor did. The regulations the politicians passed - after the people organized and took on big business head-to-head at great risk and cost - were all some sport of wishy-washy compromise between the owners and the workers, and as soon as any of that was passed the capitalists went to work to dismantle it.

Calling for "regulation" today is a way to side with the owners while fooling yourself and perhaps others that you stand with the workers. It is advocating a compromise before the negotiating has begun, and from a very weak position. It is calling for a peace settlement without requiring the other side to out down their arms. It is fantasizing about a lovely crop without ever picking up the plow or even planting any seeds. "But we used to have a nice crop, back in the days of FDR!" That crop was watered with the blood, sweat, and tears of many good people, standing united in fierce resistance. They were not blandly calling for "regulated capitalism," they were demanding that the capitalists get their boot heel off of their necks - or else - and were willing to put their lives on the line for that. To sit back now and say "oh gee, folks, let's not get too radical. I really like the things those people in the organized Labor movement won for us back in the say. Can't we just magically have that again. Can't we continue to benefit from the sacrifices of others, and not have to actually do anything?" is to side with the owners, and to side with the owners is to insure that the things you hope to get from regulated capitalism will never see the light of day.

We may wind up with some sort of regulated capitalism - after a long and hard fight and much sacrifice - but we will never get there by advocating for regulated capitalism now.

[DireStrike]

115. This is all moot.

We can't get in politicians who are willing to EITHER regulate OR nationalize. There is no choice but more deregulation.

[William Z. Foster]

120. right

So why do we keep looking for politicians to do something, and why do we insist on keeping all of our political thinking within the bounds of partisan electoral politics? All progressive social change in the past came from outside of the partisan electoral political system. Why are we refusing to consider the approaches that succeeded in the past?

Have we resigned ourselves to being passive little subjects with no power and no options other than to hope we get nice choices on the ballot and that some politician will "do the right thing?" How pathetically weak and unimaginative are we? In that case, why discuss politics at all?

[DireStrike]

123. Excellent questions. They should be asked several times a day.

What is missing is effective direction and organization....

[TCJ70]

32. +1

Regulation is the key.

[sufrommich]

34. But that's not very sexy. nt

[NM_hemilover]

42. +1

[William Z. Foster]

44. nationalizing IS regulating

Advocating "regulated capitalism," if you are serious about that, would never be presented as an alternative to nationalization.

Regulating an industry so that it serves public needs means keeping Wall Street out if it. If Wall Street cannot take massive profits from an industry to the point that the industry is crippled and the public is endangered, they will have no interest in it. If they are left free to prey on the industry, they will find a way to take massive profits from an industry to the point that the industry is crippled and the public is endangered. It is what they do, it is the only thing they do.

If we were regulating a hen house, for the benefit of the hens, would we be concerned about leaving the fox in it? What does the fox contribute to the hen house? How successful can any regulation be so long as the fox is still in the hen house? I suppose we could kill the fox and hang its carcass on the wall of the hen house, for those who are so in love with the idea of having a fox around that they just can't part from it. Or maybe it is just the word "fox" people love. We could paint "fox" on the wall of the hen hose if that would make people happy.

If we were regulating the food industry, the health industry, the housing industry, the water delivery industry, the communications industry because the public was being gouged and deprived and denied those essentials, would we leave Wall Street in the game? Why? what does Wall Street contribute to any of those industries? (Wall Street = investors = capitalism; investors drive capitalism, ARE capitalism.) We could hang up some pictures of Wall Street investors in the agencies that manage those vital public needs, or perhaps paint "Goldman-Sachs" on the outside of the building, or "capitalism" if that would make people happy.

Yes, let's regulate the hen house for the benefit of the hens. Step one - get the fox out of it. Yes, let's regulate the economy for the benefit of the people. Step one - get Wall Street (capitalists) out of it.

When people recommend "regulated capitalism" as an alternative to pubic infrastructure, public agencies, public management, and public accountability, I am suspicious that they love the fox much more than they do the hens and are not serious about regulation for the benefit of the hens.

The fox has wrecked everything for almost all of us, and has had its chance to run the hen house for the benefit of the hens and has failed mightily. Why are people so afraid to let the hens run it - OMG!!! socialismcommunicsmStalinMaopolpotChavez!!!!

[gravity]

64. Nationalization isn't regulation

A nationalized industry can still pollute the environment and endanger the people. Politicians can get corrupted and enrich themselves and their friends.

No one is arguing the regulated capitalism is better at providing public infrastructure, public management or social services. Those are clearly better done by the government.

Regulated markets work better for consumer goods and services and commodities, because the competition increases innovation and lowers prices for consumers.

[William Z. Foster]

66. I think you missed my point

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Of course nationalization is a form of public regulation of an industry.

Also, I am not advocating eliminating sales, markets, or trade.

Competition does not increase innovation and lower prices for consumers. It does the exact opposite. Most of the innovation - computers and the Internet are a prime example - came from public research. The purloining of that research for private gain has clearly limited innovation and cost the consumer far more.

Competition drives down wages and cheapens the quality of the product and works against the consumer. This isn't even controversial - it is an inescapable fact of every day life, and people everywhere are complaining about it.

Just because the pro-business and anti-worker think tanks keep peddling the line that "competition increases innovation and lowers prices for consumers" does not make it true, let alone immune from critical analysis.

Or perhaps you think that the outsourcing of almost all manufacturing of consumer goods to China, because of competition, has been a good thing for all of us?

In any case Wall Street has all of the power. How can a weaker entity regulate or tame a more powerful entity?

Saying "I would like lovely ripe crops, that is the program I favor, not that dangerous and radical and dirty program of plowing and weeding" would be silly. Yet "regulated capitalism" is the crop, and it was only won by the workers standing together and resisting and fighting back - dangerous and radical and dirty program of plowing and weeding. It is illogical to advocate for enjoyment of the crop - regulated capitalism - as an alternative to the hard work needed to get that crop - educating, organizing, resisting and fighting back.

[jberryhill]

8. Dunno about yours, but mine goes to the county sewage treatment facility...

I think most of our shit is dealt with at a local government level. Do we really need to federalize it?

[B2G]

9. Yes. Let's nationalize everything.

Because the government can run thing so much more efficiently than anyone else.



:rofl:

[fascisthunter]

10. hard time reading and comprehending huh? The OP didn't say "Everything"

but you did... strange

[B2G]

15. Well this certainly narrows it down.

"They clearly are NOT taking care of the environment, they're wrecking the economy, they're screwing over working people and robbing us for bailouts when THEY need it."

What 'they' is the OP referring to?

[laughingliberal]

16. I'm always asking RWers to name one thing that was formerly a government service that did not get

more expensive and less responsive to people after privatization. I have yet to have one answer me. The Ronald Reagan talking points don't impress me.

[B2G]

19. Perhaps you could cite an example

of a service that has been privitized that was previously provided by the government?

My experience is that once the government takes over, there's no going back.

[laughingliberal]

21. Perhaps I asked first

This RW meme that government can't do anything better than 'bidness' started with Reagan. I've never seen it proven true. All I see is 'bidness' does everything it can to maximize profits and screw anyone in their path. So, you tell me what we've turned over to 'bidness' and those wonderful 'free markets' that now costs you less and provides you with better service. Extra credit for explaining how getting rid of 'gubmint regewlasheons' allowed the markets to 'run free' and create prosperity for us all.

[B2G]

23. So you can't cite an example

of a government service that has been privitized? Because off the top of my head, I can't think of one. You want me to argue a hypothetical statement it would seem.

[laughingliberal]

25. I asked first for an example of any government service which got better and less expensive after

privatization. You were the one with the little rolly around laughy guy talking about government not doing anything right. So, enlighten me as to the beauty of privatization. You know-how all that competition has brought costs down and improved quality. Really. If 'bidness' does such a great job of providing essential services you should be able to think of one thing that got better after privatization. I'm only asking for one example.

But, you don't have one. Because the truth is it was always a scam the Freidmanites sold us through St Ronnie and it's never worked and their policies are the precise reason we are where we are now. When the Reagan Democrats 'came home' they should have left Ronnie where they found him.

[Flaneur]

33. How about the use of contractors by the Pentagon?

I know an aircraft mechanic getting $135,000 a year working for a contractor maintaining US military aircraft. I bet the Air Force (and the taxpayers) don't pay their mechanics that much.

[laughingliberal]

35. That's a great start! nt

[onenote]

61. sure the government does everything well, like buying $600 toilet seats and building levees in NO

By the way, the Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue of nationalization of industry by the executive branch, in the Steel Seizure case. The opinion of William O Douglas is worth a read.

[provis99]

68. the $600 toilets are bought from PRIVATE industry.

You're not helping your own argument.

[onenote]

75. the decision to buy them was made by a government official

sorry. you lose.

[William Z. Foster]

98. well...

The problem with your statement is that we have revolving door between industry and the regulatory agencies, and the government officials are too often in bed with the contractors.

Would you claim that privatizing the Pentagon - ala Blackwater - would save money?

What is with the "you lose" remark? Are we in middle school? Make an intelligent argument, and give others respect and consideration for their views.

[William Z. Foster]

97. double standard, and Douglas

Corporations could be buying gold-plated toilets all day long, as they cut wages and downsize workers, and you would never even hear about it, and if you did it would be in some article full of admiration for the elegant taste and style of the successful.

At issue in the case you refer to was the scope of executive authority. It doesn't have much relevance to this discussion. Truman was not attempting to nationalize the steel industry. Douglas's opinion was that the power to seize the steel mill resided with Congress, not the President.

"But the emergency did not create power; it merely marked an occasion when power should be exercised. And the fact that it was necessary that measures be taken to keep steel in production does not mean that the President, rather than the Congress, had the constitutional authority to act."

[onenote]

116. I've seen some gold plated government offices

My point is that anyone who thinks that putting the government in charge of a particular line of business is going to eliminate waste and fraud is deluding themselves. I'm not saying those things don't exist in the private sector. However, one could make a reasonable argument that expecting the government to effectively regulate itself may be even more wishful thinking than expecting the government to effectively regulate private enterprise.

As for Douglas, I know that the issue was the scope of executive authority. The OP called for nationalizing and since the chances of that being done by Congress are nil, I figured it was safe to assume the OP was calling for executive action.

[William Z. Foster]

118. I don't know what you are saying

The point of government is to put the people in charge, to represent the working people's interests. The wealthy people don't need government, they could just priuvati9ze everything and run the country as a plantation and hire their own police and military. That effort - fighting for the working people and forming governments to protect our interests - may or may not be successful, but are we to give up on it before we start?

This "waste and fraud" stuff is applying a corporate organizational model and mentality to government. Money given to the wealthy few is "waste and fraud," money returned to the working people is not. When the right wingers talk about "waste and fraud" they are almost always talking about money spent for public benefit, for the benefit of the working class people.

I have no idea how you can make the assumption that the OP is calling for "executive action." A debate about the separation of powers, which is what the steel seizure case in 1952 was about, is not at all relevant to this discussion.

The OP is calling for nationalization, in the hopes of generating support for that, and were that effort successful then we would not be dealing with the same Congress that we are now - obviously. So what the current Congress may or may not do under present circumstances is also completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Your logic is this - since current conditions preclude what you are advocating, therefore you should not advocate it. The only way to change current conditions is to advocate for something else and build support for something different. current conditions should never be an excuse for not advocating for something different, or for not considering something different.

[onenote]

128. when did I say the idea shouldn't be advocated?

I missed that in what I wrote. Please point it out to me.

[William Z. Foster]

129. read it again

I was talking about what the OP was advocating - nationalization - not you.

[hack89]

134. It is cheaper in the long run.

when the Air Force enlists someone it has to assume that person will stay around for a 20 year career. That translates into a lifetime of pay, medical and retirement benefits. Retiree benefits are are a huge part of the military budget.

Hiring that experienced mechanic (and god forbid someone actually gets paid for what he is worth) does several things. The big one is that it is the cheapest way to quickly change the size of the military, both to enlarge or to downsize. When the war is over, the military can just tell industry it no longer needs all those contractors - it's financial obligation ends right there.

[William Z. Foster]

60. hard to cite anything that is NOT an example

Almost every thing once publicly owned or managed is for sale today.

You can't think of one? Seriously? Does the word "Blackwater" mean anything to you? Think harder.

[provis99]

67. the military has been partially privatized, as have military services.

That's why we now pay billions of dollars to Halliburton in Iraq so that our soldiers can drink sewer water and get electrocuted in the showers.

[Scuba]

30. How 'bout feeding our troops in Iraq and Afg, no longer done by KP's

[laughingliberal]

36. Another good one. And we might ask what we paid a company that was electrocuting our troops while

they showered.

[William Z. Foster]

57. no problem

We are watching a massive privatization of pubic schools and Land Grant colleges effort going on right now.

A proposal for privatizing NASA is afoot and being considered.

State parks are being privatized around the country.

Conrail was privatized.

Food inspection service in agriculture has been privatized.

Utilities have been privatized.

Communities have sold their public water supply to private interests.

Prisons have been privatized.

The Internet has been privatized.

The military has been privatized.

In fact, is their any public agency, infrastructure, or program that is not on the auction block right now?

[Overseas]

119. And I was so full of hope that we would begin to reverse that destructive privatization.

It has been heartbreaking to see it accelerate. Especially in public education. Democrats pushing union busting tactics. Really painful.

I thought the Bush Cheney war profiteering, pointedly exposed, as part of a review of all the failures of Republicans who took us to the Bush Crash and Bush Bailout and blatant torture programs, would be part of the new administration right off the bat. But we got this kooky bipartisan junk instead.

I had a lovely dream of calling a massive time out on Republican Privatization because so many millions of us had voted for change.

Medicare for All should have followed very closely on those Bush Bailouts. The people needed that bailout, after having our savings sucked away and being evicted from our homes in the tens of thousands.

Privatization has cost us so much more than doing things in house, by the people. Those who promote privatization talk about corruption sometimes, but there is far more corruption in privatization-- it is just behind closed doors-- or driven to shoddy service by the imperatives of quarterly profits.

[William Z. Foster]

131. heartbreaking, yes

I think a lot of people are stunned and grieving, and feeling desperation now.

[Amonester]

132. The U.S. Postal Service

I hope it's not next on the li$t of corrupt pol$, though. :(

[EFerrari]

17. Oh, dear, no. Let's keep letting Haliburton and Black Water and BP

and Goldman Sachs do their efficient little number all over our heads. LOL

[corpseratemedia]

27. just look at how great medicare part d has worked out, huh?!11

and how much our country also saves with all our military infrastructure privatized!!11

boy do I *hate* medicare and social security!!1..of course, there are those who actually remember how reagan worked so hard to dismantle govt. efficiency

[laughingliberal]

29. Don't look now but the spirit of the St. walks among us even on DU. nt

[William Z. Foster]

56. huh?

It has nothing to do with who can run things more effectively. At issue is who benefits, who the organizations are being run to serve.

A public agency may fail to serve the public. A private entity almost always will - whenever the desires of the few, the owners, conflict with the needs of the many, and they will always conflict sooner or later.

Farm credit, Land Grant colleges, public education, cooperative extension, public transportation and infrastructure, national parks, weights and measures, telecommunications infrastructure, computing, food and water delivery and safety, water quality management and soil conservation - all of those are spectacular successes. By what wild stretch of the imagination in a fevered libertarian brain could we ever think that private interests could have run those things more effectively?? They would not even have been accomplished at all.

"Business can run things better, so let the few control everything for their benefit" is the heart and soul of the Republican program. That is a legitimate point of view, but we should be clear whose interests that serves and then people can freely choose to take that side or not.

[hack89]

11. And fuck up our economy like he did his?

year, the economy slid 3.3 percent. Some economists, including Guerra, predict a 5 percent contraction this year. The International Monetary Fund says the economy will probably shrink 2 percent.

Venezuela's performance stands in stark contrast to the rest of Latin America, where some central banks worry about overheating economies in 2010.In Peru, Chile and Brazil, all of which embrace globalization, growth could indeed go well beyond 4 percent, the IMF says. Venezuela, economists say, stands out -- its economic policies marked by the nationalization of industries and stringent currency controls.

"The reason Venezuela is contracting is because private activity is contracting," Augusto de la Torre, the World Bank's chief economist for Latin America, said in Washington last week. "What we're seeing in Venezuela is a phenomenon where productivity, private activity and private business is falling."

The oil industry is pumping 20 percent less crude than in the 1990s and is saddled with debt. The country's inflation rate could hit 35 percent this year, economists say.Thousands of factories, paralyzed by a failure to access money or spare parts, have closed since 1999, said Carlos Larrazábal, president of Coindustria, which represents manufacturing nationwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042805712.html?hpid=artslot

[EFerrari]

13. Like his did his according to the vultures at the World Bank.

LOL

[hack89]

20. So lets see some stats from another source.

Do you consider Vheadline.com reputable?

[fascisthunter]

12. I Believe in a Democracy we should have the right

when companies prove they are fuck-up greedy sociopaths, then it's time. And since energy is a national security issue, I think it is way past time.

[Cleita]

18. I'm all for nationalizing all the extraction industries within our borders and

that includes oil. The proceeds from the sales of those raw materials should be used for the people, for infrastructure and social programs like health care and education. I believe it would help reduce the tax burden as well for the middle class. Even the Saudis get it, that the oil belongs to all Saudis not just the royal family although they do help themselves to the royal share.

[MajorChode]

26. The rig in question already was, "nationalized"

[Greyhound]

31. This nation better do something drastic, and soon.

Right now we're fucked in almost any detrimental scenario, we can't make and are rapidly losing our ability to buy, any of the supporting technology required to sustain ourselves. We are literally at the mercy of the most merciless parasites on earth.

[AnArmyVeteran]

37. Amen, we do need to nationalize. Remember when gas was $4 a gallon here?

It was a third of that in Mexico. Big rig drivers drove all the way to Mexico to fill up and even considering the long drive they still saved money. Mexico's oil is nationalized. And if Mexico government can provide cheap gas so can our government. At least we wouldn't have a dozen different oil companies all making 40 billion dollar profits off of us every year.

[B2G]

38. So please explain to me

how 'nationalizing' the oil industry would have a) prevented this or b) gotten it under control sooner.

[subsuelo]

47. accountability. n/t

[B2G]

58. Accountabilty when we're in control

or if the Repukes get it back?

Because if it's nationalized, it's essentially under the control of the ruling party.

[William Z. Foster]

110. no worries there

If an industry is nationalized, and then the Republicans get back in power, they will privatize it.

There is not any "ruling party" no matter which party is in control. That is not who rules us. Both parties answer to the corporations and to Wall Street.

[William Z. Foster]

62. may not have

It may not have.

So what?

Why would we trade certain catastrophe - which is what we have with privatization just as soon as short term profits conflict with the public welfare, and sooner or later they always will conflict - - for possible catastrophe under public management?

Why would we embrace privatization in the hope that corporations may some day "do the right thing," but reject management by pubic agencies because of the fear that they might not do the right thing? That is illogical.

Agricultural research and land management in the hands of public agencies: the Land Grant colleges and Farm Credit and the USDA and the state Departments of Agriculture - unprecedented success by any measure. Soil conservation, rotation of crops, improved water quality, safer food, sustainability, stable farm communities, and on and on. Agriculture in the hands of Cargil, ADM and Monsanto over the last few decades - catastrophic. We are bettering on the brink of a worldwide food crisis. Catastrophic for us, the eaters, I should say. Wildly successful for the Wall Street investors.

Why are you trying to scare people about public management, and lull them about private management?

[B2G]

63. Because public management is dictated by those in charge at the moment.

[William Z. Foster]

99. huh?

So is private management.

Are you rejecting the entire concept of government? By your logic, all government is liable to be "dictated by those in charge at the moment."

[hack89]

40. Why does government ownership mean less environmental disasters?

China and the Soviet Union are pretty good evidence that governments can be as bad as corporations.

Governments need profits too - all those social benefits still have to be paid for. Chavez still has the same need to maximize profit as any corporation - why do you assume he will put the environment over making money?

[provis99]

69. if a government does it, externalities are borne by the owners of government

private industry does not internalize the cost of externalities. So yes, government deals with pollution better than private industry.

[hack89]

74. That assumes that enviromental protection is a priority

for the government. There is no reason to believe that governments, in and of themselves, are more interested in environmental protection than corporations.

[William Z. Foster]

101. of course

That is always true at all times.

You are arguing against the very concept of government.

There is much reason to believe that "governments, in and of themselves, are more interested in" public welfare of all kinds than corporations are. In other posts on this thread some of the things done by government, that would never have been done by private interests, are listed. Those things listed are only a small fraction of the things done by government for the public welfare that never were and never would have been done by private interests.

We are seeing Democrats now arguing for privatization, arguing for regressive taxes, and now arguing against the very concept of government of any kind. I wonder if people have internalized the Reagan-era arguments, and the propaganda coming from the right wing and libertarian think tanks and don't even realize that they have. When Republicans argue for these things, they at least can make a logical argument to support those ideas. Democrats express the same ideas, but don't seem to understand them very well nor where they came from.

[hack89]

102. I don't see why running an oil company

is an inherently government function. Schools, roads, defense, justice, food safety, environmental regulation? No problem. But running inherently commercial enterprises? No.

Every successful European social democratic country has found a balance - every one depends on a vibrant economy centered on private corporations. They simply tap into the generated wealth through taxes. Chavez(the subject of the OP), on the other hand, is gutting his economy by driving private enterprise from the economy. He is running out of money to fund all those social programs that his people desperately need.

[William Z. Foster]

103. that makes no sense

At one time "schools, roads, defense, justice, food safety, environmental regulation" were "inherently commercial enterprises." To say that everything that is now private should remain so because it already is private is illogical, and is an argument against public services, public welfare, and the concept of government itself. That is an extreme right wing view politically, or at the very least gives aid and comfort to those advancing the right wing pro-corporate, pro-management and pro-rulers agenda.

I think the OP used "Chavez" for dramatic effect, and that seems to have been missed by many people. I think the OP means "let's stop caving in to fear of 'Chavez' or whatever and seriously consider a new approach."

There is no way to "run out of money to fund all those social programs." That is an illogical argument, and a favorite of the right wing. The working people benefit from the social programs, and the working people are the source of all wealth - all funds.

"We can't afford" to provide various things for the working people always means "we the wealthy do not want any of the money we took from the workers given back to them, because we are enjoying our luxury and power thank you very much." When one of us starts talking about what "we" can or cannot "afford" we are betraying our identification with the rulers, with the wealthy and powerful few. You are projecting that common unconscious identification with the rulers that so many Democrats have internalized onto Chavez and the situation there.

The "balance" you are describing requires there to be equal force on both sides of that "balance" - regulation, etc. That means there must be people on the worker's side as strongly and unambiguously fighting as the right wingers are fighting on the side of the bosses. Being in favor of "balance" is merely wishing for the happy result without being willing to do the work to get to that result. Presenting "balance" as a preferable alternative to a strong stance for the working class is merely a way to defend the interests of the wealthy and powerful few, while pretending to be on the side of the working people.

If you want "balance" you had better start fighting your ass off on the left wing side of the fulcrum, because all of the power is on the other side of that "balance" point you say you want. If you do not want to fight on the side of the working people, and are going to attack those who are, then the "balance" you are promoting will never be possible and you are not really serious about getting to that "balance." You are using it as a way to side with the wealthy and powerful few and hide that fact. If you want to see us arrive some day at that wonderful balance, then you should be siding with rather than arguing against the people advocating a stronger left wing.

[hack89]

106. What country do you hold up as a good example?

I am having a hard time squaring what you say against the real world. What country would you like us to be more like?

[William Z. Foster]

111. the United States

I would hold up the United States as an example of the things that are possible.

I would not want to see the United States become more like any other country, as I think it is unique and good.

When I say "United States" - unlike almost all commentators here and in the media - I mean the working people, not the rulers.

This is where the battle is, and this is where we fight.

[anigbrowl]

127. Chernobyl, for example. nt

[William Z. Foster]

73. governments don't make profits

You don't understand profits, nor government if you think governments need to "maximize profit (the same) as any corporation."

"All those social benefits have to be paid for" is nonsensical. The benefits go to the working lass, and the working class is the source of all wealth in the first place. Social benefits are not costing anyone anything - they do cut into corporate profits, however, which is why the right wing opposes them.

Your assumption that government is no different than corporations, each running a business to make a profit, is a novel argument against public infrastructure and public ownership and management. Not sure how to respond to it. Do you see the purpose of public education, for example, to be making a profit? National parks? Food inspection agencies?

Has the propaganda that "everyone is in it for themselves" and "the whole world is a free market" been so internalized that people cannot imagine any other way to look at the world now?

Parenting - how about parenting? Is the point of that to make a profit? Why would you assume that parents will put feeding their kids over making money?

[hack89]

76. But they depend on the profits of corporations

to pay for that infrastructure. Why do you assume that a government, faced with the need to for social programs and public infrastructure, will not choose to maximize oil production and profits to pay for them - at the cost of environmental protection. You assume that environmental protection is automatically the choice of those in power - can you imagine a nationalized energy company in a Bush administration? Look at Congress and tell me that power and money are less important to them than the environment.

[tammywammy]

114. +1 n/t

[Nye Bevan]

41. How would you raise the money? It would cost billions.

Because the Constitution prevents the Government from seizing private property without paying fair compensation. You would need to reimburse the shareholders in full. And this would probably trigger untold millions for the executives in stock options and golden parachutes. They would get the payday of a lifetime. And then... I wonder who the Government would need to hire to run their newly acquired company? After all, I am sure nobody in Government is an expert at running an oil company. I guess they could lure these executives out of their new lucrative retirement and pay them even more money to continue what they were doing before.

Or alternatively we could leave the companies in private hands but enact tough new regulations with real teeth, and make the companies themselves pay for the implementation of the new rules.

[NeedleCast]

45. No. It's Not.

[L0oniX]

46. By all means ..let's keep spending everything we have on the fucking military...

until we end up like Russia.

[lonestarnot]

48. Yeah how many trillions are we into in in the two occupations?

[L0oniX]

54. Oh it's not just those ...it's also the pentagon and the MIC's and all the world wide bases.

I've seen stats that say that over 1/2 of our federal taxes go to the military in some way. I think I believe that.

[lonestarnot]

55. You are so right and then there is the offshoots from them.

It's a big giant bloodsucker!

[lonestarnot]

49. !

http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627065038658514

[wiggs]

51. Must, MUST read: Earth Democracy by Vandana Shiva. I'm only 1/4 of the way

through it but so far it's about privatizing of the commons for profit. The commons refers to a lot of things, but resources are one of them (knowledge, life, air, water, animals, etc are some others).

Good stuff. Requires a bit of patience in the beginning but the thoughts add up to powerful statements that describe a fundamentally different relationship between government, business, individuals, and community. It's important.

One thing that's clear is that the trend has been toward privatization and away from nationalizing (bringing about a host of dysfunctional ills)....and that the conversation has to be reversed to shed light on the fact that privatization and corporatism IS the radical, unhealthy change and that a realization of community and the commons is the healthier, historic condition. The perspective has to be reversed...we need to GO BACK to a healthier social model and stop, slow down or reverse this sick dash toward private ownership of the commons.

[subsuelo]

59. thanks I'll look up the book...

perhaps the *first* place to start nationalizing is the news media?

[William Z. Foster]

65. thanks

Great recommendation.

Amazing to read Democrats - Democrats!! - defending regressive taxes the last few days, and now defending privatization.

At least Republicans are honest about this. They don't deny that they are taking positions in favor of regressive taxes and privatization, and they explain why they are doing that - because those things help the wealthiest few, and in their view that is the route to generalized prosperity, or even if it isnlt it is still the "right" way to go - reward the winners and ounish the losers.

The arguments from conservative Democrats on these threads defending privatization and regressive taxation are much less straightforward. They sometimes will deny that those things are happening, deny that they exist, deny that there should be an issue about them. Then later they might say that those things are inevitable, or desirable.

If people are going to defend privatization and regressive taxation, they should at least be honest about it. That I could respect. But to confuse and mislead people - that is a greater threat to public welfare and to the future of the Democratic party than the Republicans could ever be.

Conservative Democrats - consistently pro-owner, pro-bosses, pro-landlord, pro-investor, pro-ruling class - have a right to express their opinions, of course and to make their best case. However, they are a relatively small, if powerful and domineering, faction within the party and within the body of Democratic party voters, and it is not right that they control the direction of the party and always seek to shut out, shout down, ridicule or marginalize dissenting voices.

The Democratic party will succeed by doing one of two things, and I believe that it must and will do one of these two things. Either become a conservative replacement for the Republican party - and that is definitely the direction it is now heading - or become an alternative to the Republican party.

"A party divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this party cannot endure permanently half pro-owner and half pro-worker. I do not expect the party to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

[glitch]

93. Not that amazing - big tent and all. When the republicans imploded we got a lot of noobies.

Not surprising that they would bring their talking points with them -- and they aren't known for their rapid adaptation.

[William Z. Foster]

109. they probably will prevail

We could be seeing the party switching positions and becoming the major conservative party. That has happened in the past. That would make the Republican party redundant and obsolete - there is getting to be less and less room to the right of the Democrats for them to run on.

I don't think the newcomers will be adapting to the party, changing their positions, rapidly or otherwise. They are not the ones who will be changing, it is the Democratic party that is changing to match their views.

The faction within the party - people like to call it the "DLC" - represented by Rahm Emmanuel and other like-minded souls, is engaged on a bold but risky adventure. They are closer to Reagan Republicans on almost all issues than they are to Democrats from 40 or 80 years ago, and have been fighting a ferocious battle for control of the party for years against what they call the "fringe" and the "McGovernites." They are now ascendant and are going about purging the party of its traditional base and wooing conservatives.

Should the "DLC" faction succeed, the Democratic party will be established as the new dominant pro-corporate conservative party. That could lead to the collapse of the republican party, and the emergence of a new party on the left to replace the Democratic party and represent the old base. Should the "DLC" faction fail. There will be chaos, the Republican party will be revived and the battle for control over the Democratic party will begin again. But as it is now, Labor, the environmental movement, teachers, GLBTQ equality advocates, anti-war people, Bill of Rights defenders, women's rights advocates and everyone else from the traditional base of the party - the "far left wacky fringe McGovernites" according to the DLC folks - have lost, and the pro-corporate "practical" triangulating "third way" faction has won.

One would think that the DLC folks would be happy that they have won, and also that they would not be surprised that the traditional base is alienated and angry - that was the intention, after all - but for right now, so long as the Republican party still looms in the wings, they have to advance their conservative agenda at the same time as they deny that they are doing that so as to keep all of us on board during this transition and to keep the Republicans from getting back into power. Once they have moved completely to the right and brought over some more Republican voters and consolidated power a little more, then we are all expendable. For now, they have to beat down our ideas, ferociously resist and discredit all criticism and dissent from us, but at the same time deny that they are doing that. They are not attacking the left for any of the reasons they claim - being practical, being realistic, taking baby steps - but rather because they are moving the party dramatically to the right.

[glitch]

122. Sadly I think you are probably correct (although saying so here just encourages them)

I also think that is the true source of the Republican politicians' viciousness, they know they are being made obsolete.

But the best plan is to fight them, not give the power base the party has built over the decades all up. As the Republicans become more and more marginalized the Democrats will fracture. When that happens the power in the party can be split. Only then can we have a powerful "third" party IMO. I think Progressive Democrats of America stands a better chance than the Green Party, although I believe in nurturing both. And not all corporations are multi-national and conservative. I think the Progressives should point out that the DLC aligning with the mega-corporations is not doing main street businesses any favors (although it should be blatantly obvious by now). Like us voters, socially responsible businesses may've thought donating to Democrats was their only option. PDA should make it clear there is a voice for them, as well as environmentalists, and anti-fascists, and sustainable energy and organic food systems people etc etc.

So when the DLC lie to us, let them know we aren't buying it, we know who they are and what they are doing. Support Progressives directly build locally and vote (although don't get me started on the corrupt state of the election process) strategically. Take back the party, or at least split the party apparatus so that it isn't the only viable option for we the people, and
Tell your friends! :hi:

[William Z. Foster]

124. I say let them have the party, myself

All it is is a brand name at this point. We waste a lot of time and energy battling with them over who gets to own the brand name. At one time the "Democratic" brand meant "pro-slavery." Partisan political politics is not where change is going to come from in any case - never has, never will.

Yes, all corporations are "multi-national and conservative," or are trying to be if they want to survive. Saying that is like saying "not all football players tackle people." Maybe not, but they are all trying to or they won't be around for long.

Some of the "liberal" corporations, like the Pom-wonderful outfit, making organic this and that and donating massive money to liberal causes while at the same time the driving force behind privatizing California's water, are the worst of any corporations.

It is the system that needs to be changed, it is not a matter of good and bad individual people. The system encourages and rewards the most destructive and anti-social activity, and sooner or later forces even the best people to play that game or be out of business.

Organizations like PDA and Moveon are twisting themselves into knots right now because of their unwillingness to accept what I just said in that previous paragraph. Eventually, all of the liberal and progressive organizations have to "be realistic" and support the "lesser of two evils" because they will not challenge the system itself, and instead keep insisting that we should "work within" the system, or the party, or whatever.

[glitch]

125. I think the party still has a lot of power, and leaving them with all of it is a tactical mistake.

since we'll be competing with them, within or without the system.

[William Z. Foster]

130. the party and power

The party has two sources of power.

One - corporate money, and we have to fight that someday no matter what.

Two - our support, and it isn't logical to say that we have to support them because they have power when we are the source of that power through our support.

But I not talking about or advocating "leaving the party" - I don't even know what that would mean. I am talking about how the party has left us, and what might happen as a result of that. I am also talking about breaking out of the mentality that sees the partisan electoral political system as only context for our political thinking.

[lib2DaBone]

53. ONLY Congress has the right to issue money.....

Kick the FED to the Curb... and do it NOW..

[flamingdem]

71. BINGO nt

[troubledamerican]

72. 1973: Canada nationalizes Petrocanada in response to Arab Oil Embargo

This was not a "takeover" of an existing corporation -- it was a creation of a public oil company.

Right-wingers privatized it, of course, in 1990, when Canadian liberals got lazy and stopped fighting for truth.

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

[MilesColtrane]

77. Can we start with nationalizing Congress?

Get rid of the privately owned legislators and maybe we can start to heel the corporations.

[glitch]

94. We'd better. As long as the corporations own government "nationalizing" won't solve the problem. nt

[Xenotime]

78. Yes! The free sector is way out of control.

[Rebubula]

79. No

No it is not.

Having the government take over business is wrong. Chavez is wrong and so are you.

I love how some people hate\fear the government but seem to trust it to be fair to all its peoples when it come to business matters.

Do you even listen to yourself?

This method has been tried in many countries and has failed every time due to the overwhelming nature of human freedom and individuality.

[subsuelo]

80. where did I express hate/fear of the government? n/t

[weaver.terrence]

82. RE: It's time to start nationalizing shit - Chavez style.

You end up handing over all your basic utilities to the Government and be sure that’ll be messed up as well. At least the Corporate Sector has suitably qualified people motivated to work for profit. What’s the motivation of this Government?

[kctim]

89. Oh so very true

and don't forget that government is the ONLY entity that can "legally" force one to pay for and use their product.

The "its not fair" "give me give me" simpletons never take those kind of things into account though.

[melm00se]

81. I would like to point out

that this would never happen for a few reasons:

1) Let's start with this clause from the 5th amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." While you could say: let's just do eminent domain or "corporations aren't People"; "just compensation" will crop up and I can guarantee you that the individual shareholders (who are people with individual and protected rights) would file lawsuit after lawsuit contesting the government's valuation of "just compensation".

2) Cost - a company like XOM would carry, at a minimum, a price tag of (as of this morning) $318 billion (and that doesn't include the 2.6% effective dividend that would have to be factored in for this and every other future year) and if you expand that across multiple industries and innumerable companies the costs would spiral completely and ruinously out of control.

3) Economic impact - the worldwide economic impact of the USA, of all countries, to move to nationalize any industry, much less huge segments of the economy, would ripple around the globe and, IMO, not in a good way. Remember modern economies are valued and strengthened by perception and trust, damage either and a slide can and will happen.

4) The aforementioned likelihood of "lobbyists" acting to defeat any such attempt.

5) the longterm failure of centrally planned economies - while some economies have flourished under a centrally planned model, they haven't shown, in the long term, that they are viable in the long run. The Soviet Union and it's centrally planned economy failed miserably and cost innumerable lives. China, so far, appears to be a success but as there isn't a whole lot of detailed, unfiltered/uncensored information flowing out of there, I (and much of the world) reserve judgment there.

So there are, at least, 5 hurdles (at the minimum some of which are practically insurmountable without a significant dismantling of the US and what it has, for more than 200 years, stood for) that would make "nationalizing" a highly unlikely proposition.

[blindpig]

84. Damn straight.

Energy, finance, Big Agra, Big Pharma, for a start.

k&r

[Common Sense Party]

85. Beyong Exxon, what are your Top 10 companies you want to take over?

[D23MIURG23]

86. Unrec. Don't use Chavez in a positive context.

That man is an anti-democratic statist, and as far as I can see he is hated by his own people.

[fascisthunter]

87. and that would be a lie

[D23MIURG23]

88. I can say the same about you. If you have a rebuttal go ahead and post it.

[fascisthunter]

96. Why Rebut? There is nothing there besides a fucking accusation

obviously meant to disrupt. You post was just inflamatory because you dislike the man's political/economic stragtegy to wrip his country and people away from big businesses and wealthy players who have more or less controlled the country for many years, bringing Venezuela to the point you saw right before Chavez was democratically elected.

I know a hater when I see one. Next time post something I can rebut besides a pathetical right leaning slam on the guy.

[NM_hemilover]

92. Chavez has essentially screwed his country

in order to look like a tough guy, by standing up to the US. His inflamatory comments, and theatrical antics are really popular and exciting on the news, but look closer at the state of his country, it's in the sexual foreplay stage right now, about to be fucked.

[fascisthunter]

95. His inflamatory comments!? Huh... how about supporting a fucking Coup

We support a coup of ANOTHER democratically elected left wing President and all he has to say is boo, and american meatheads get all in bunch.

See to you helping the poor in your own country=bad for the economy. Gee I wonder where you might be in regards to free trade and American unions demanding more pay.

[NM_hemilover]

104. Keep your "American meathead" comments to yourself,

I'm not impressed with insulting the American population. If you are going to project the actions of government to the will of the people then I'll just assume you are personally to blame for the oil disaster in the Gulf, the Iraq war, the collapse of the housing market etc etc.

Chavez is a monumental blowhard, who's inflammatory, shock value comments get him praise from people all over the world, that love to hear the US ridiculed. Look past the window dressing that has your attention, and see that Chavez is an idiot, and an idiot who doesn't care what happens to his country.

Where did the homeless comment come from ?

I think the free trade agreements that are in play right now, put American companies at a distinct disadvantage for doing business IN the USA, due to not holding foreign traded goods to the same manufacturing standards and practices that we hold domestic companies. Those "corporations" that are the supposed root of all evil, are moving operations overseas, and exploiting world markets with full approval of the American free trade agreements. As a matter of business, virtually every country that trades with the US has an advantage over home based manufacturing. Free trade, should also include FAIR trade. Thats not a D or R issue, they are BOTH to blame.

Unions
I'm in construction, 41 years old and been in construction my whole life. I'm a project manager for a General Contractor, had this position for 8 or 9 years and can talk labor on whatever level you feel comfortable, within the field of construction. What is called a union carpenter, or tinner, or sparky now, is NOT the same as what was called a union worker 20 years ago. I got to be a Journeyman Carpenter, after being trained in a union shop, apprenticed then awarded the honor of being a Journeyman Carpenter, it MEANT something then, and in my late twenties/early thirties I was a YOUNG JC. Today, what I see now is a thirst for dues, Electrical and Plumbers union are not quite SO bad, but any dick head with a hammer and money for dues can be in the carpenters union, and be moved thru the system just as fast if not faster than we were, with little to no regard to HAVING carpentry skills afterward. Because I no longer have to belong to the union, I don't. I can't comment on unions that I have not belonged to, but the carpenter's union makes very few contractors proud anymore. So if your question about me and unions has to do with the carpenters union I say who cares, here in Albuquerque, the carpenters union has made a joke of themselves.

Your self righteous tone, ironic user name, and "splatter" method of accusatory conversational skills doesn't leave much to the imagination. I can almost HEAR your hand on your hip waving your little finger in the air, but still not impressed.

take care.

[fascisthunter]

107. come off the high horse... nobody insulted ALL Americans

just the meatheads who know nothing about Chavez yet call him all the usual names... it's pathetic and getting old.

and another thing... what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about carpenters or unions. You sure you even responded to the right person?

For someone who isn't impressed, you sure seem riled up.

good night

[NM_hemilover]

112. you asked about my feeling about unions and free trade

Trying to answer your questions, that YOU asked.

Not riled up, take care.

[NM_hemilover]

105. going home, but I'll check back later

[fascisthunter]

108. save it

[jdp349]

90. This never would have happened if big oil had been nationalized

If big oil was state run there would obviously be far more stringent saftey and precautionary standards in place to prevent any and all environmental disasters. Corporations always lack perfect information when it comes to assessing risk on top of that they obviously willingly subject themselves to catastrophe, disaster and absolute PR nightmares because they pursue profits above all else no matter how much money it costs them. Government on the other hand, particularly democratic governments always have perfect information and never let popular sentiments and politics interfer in the management of state run institutions. Additionally, because governments have the benefit of hindsight due to perfect information, any blunder privately run industry makes, we can be assured that publically run industry will never make those mistakes. For example, look at the track record of fully nationalized no existent state run big oil in the United States, it's perfect compared to private industry. Therefore you can be sure that I'm not simply contorting this environmental disaster to fit and promote my intellectually bankrupt and absurd ideology. From this it logically follows that we should nationalize Wall St. With nationalized industry nothing bad will happen ever.

see what I did there? :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

I swear to fucking god I think a good part of DU is convinced these are the people that run BP

[merkins]

91. It's already Nationalized by the Corporations

sorry to say it, but we the people are out of the loop

[proteus_lives]

100. No thank you.

[subsuelo]

136. I disagree but you get merit points for the added "thank you"

[seabeyond]

121. no. nt

[Amonester]

133. Yes. nt

[Mudoria]

135. No