Without a socialist state, nationalization forwards capitalist interests. This is the core distinction between state capitalism, and a socialist nationalization. The conquest of political power by the working classes is the first step.
Outside of that, in a capitalist state, a worker guild is fine. It isn’t overthrowing the system, and your organizing efforts should be with a revolutionary party, but from a labor perspective it can be nicer for those working there as a temporary measure.
At the same time, nationalization may make it even easier to collectivize production and distribution. Lenin talks about this in the Tax in Kind, when Germany was described as state capitalist with a Junker-imperialist state, and that economically it was an advance on the largely small and disparate manufacturing of Russia. The RSFSR’s advantage was in having a socialist state, and thus “state capitalism” (always stressed as not true state capitalism like Germany by Lenin) was an advance towards socialism during the NEP.
It isn’t overthrowing the system, and your organizing efforts should be with a revolutionary party, but from a labor perspective it can be nicer for those working there as a temporary measure.
Umm… I am sorry, Mr. Cowbee. I am not a socialist. I am still a radical centrist. But what you said is right
Without a socialist state, nationalization forwards capitalist interests.
or capitalist logic. My state companies do not bring prosperity and are no different from private companies because of this.
No worries! And your English is good, I understand your intent! The important distinction here is the class character of the state, and that’s why state-run companies and private companies seem so similar to you in a capitalist state, as the class in charge is the same.
Without a socialist state, nationalization forwards capitalist interests. This is the core distinction between state capitalism, and a socialist nationalization. The conquest of political power by the working classes is the first step.
Outside of that, in a capitalist state, a worker guild is fine. It isn’t overthrowing the system, and your organizing efforts should be with a revolutionary party, but from a labor perspective it can be nicer for those working there as a temporary measure.
At the same time, nationalization may make it even easier to collectivize production and distribution. Lenin talks about this in the Tax in Kind, when Germany was described as state capitalist with a Junker-imperialist state, and that economically it was an advance on the largely small and disparate manufacturing of Russia. The RSFSR’s advantage was in having a socialist state, and thus “state capitalism” (always stressed as not true state capitalism like Germany by Lenin) was an advance towards socialism during the NEP.
Umm… I am sorry, Mr. Cowbee. I am not a socialist. I am still a radical centrist. But what you said is right
or capitalist logic. My state companies do not bring prosperity and are no different from private companies because of this.
I am sorry if my english is bad.
No worries! And your English is good, I understand your intent! The important distinction here is the class character of the state, and that’s why state-run companies and private companies seem so similar to you in a capitalist state, as the class in charge is the same.