• redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is quite misrepresentative of what was said. ‘Publicly owned’ refers to some flavour of common ownership of the means of production. It’s dishonest to pretend that public ownership only requires that (some) members of the public are ‘owners’. It could mean that, but it doesn’t.

    Even if you’re referring to something like stakeholder capitalism, where workers own shares, it’s packaged as private ownership, not public.

    Bourgeois parties themselves try to distance themselves from any hint of public ownership. Any politician within the party who supports anything that looks like public ownership will be disciplined or kicked out. All the major and most of the minor political parties in almost all liberal democracies vigorously argue that if they get elected they will not move towards public ownership of anything. They don’t want to spook the bourgeoisie.

    The mere whisper of nationalisation makes bourgeois politicians come out in hives. If they mention it at all, it’s to promise to privatise any remaining nationalised industries. This is the essence of neoliberalism; everything moved to the realm of the private market.

    If the single party’s ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses “don’t be evil” then …

    It’s only this broad if you change the accepted meaning of public ownership to something that nobody would seriously accept.