The Triviality of Capital Ownership

[Max Sawicky]

Red-green discussion here seems possessed by the
delusion that popular or democratic ownership of
the means of production will engender a revolution
in ecological consciousness and policy.  This is
not nearly as obvious as it seems.  Constituencies
who benefit from "dirty" industries and consumption
habits -- workers and consumers -- are likely
to oppose regulation just as they do now.  Ecological
costs that are attenuated by either time or distribution
(e.g., far in the future and uncertain; spread widely
but thinly over many) could easily have less political
sway than other interests that motivate smaller groups
to greater intensity of political effort.  This is a
logical outcome in a democratic setting.

Another canard is that control of corporations frees up
a cornucopia of resources.  If we are talking about
profits, it is only the part that is not reinvested that
is relevant, unless we are talking about having less
capital (of either brown or green variety). Of that,
some is distributed to the non-rich as returns to
savings.  This would continue in some form or other
under socialism, so this is not an escapable cost
either.  We're really reduced to talking about the
excessive consumption (quantitatively and relatively
speaking) of the better off.  There's no pony in this
pile of manure.

In a related vein, the congenitally reasonable Chris
alluded to the partial socialization of markets in the
context of the tobacco settlement, among other things.
Some types of socialization benefit Capital, possibly
including this one, as I suggested in a previous post.
Everybody here understands lemon socialism.  The better
conservative criticism of social-democracy and/or
planning usefully describes such phenomena, though
it typically exaggerates its extent and likelihood.
Just as a government can socialize losses that would
otherwise be incurred by capital owners, so it can
privatize losses in the interests of economic justice
with prudent boundaries to state intervention.  True
advances would entail public takeover of genuine
assets for the sake of socializing benefits, where
the public sector enjoys some type of advantage in
managing such assets.  Otherwise, any returns to
ownership can be captured through taxation.
Ownership and/or regulation per se need not be
beneficial.

The green view typically discounts the extent of
broad public interest in accepting environmental
costs, or it ends up positioning itself in
opposition to the public, particularly the
working class.

The statist fallacy is to overdraw the benefits
of state intervention and discount the virtues
of forbearance.

Obviously the truth of this depends on the cases
in question.  The green allegiance among the public,
now, under socialism, or anywhere in between, is
much less than it is cracked up to be, as are the
progressive implications of the tobacco wars.

Cheers,

mbs