Second order control through a state that must deal with an 'excess of democracy' is hardly an ideal alternative to the direct ownership that gives meaning to accumulation. Private ownership also creates multiple nodes of power that ensures the system can survive the toppling of some incredibly powerful entities.
Dismissing the difference between public and private ownership completely saps meaning from processes of privatization. Is it opponents of these processes or the recipients of formerly public enterprises who are deluded on these matters?
On 27-Aug-09, at 9:18 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> "Private enterprise" is not a technical term of politial economy; it
> is
> part of the folklore of capitalism, and there fore discussing whether
> Country X is or is oot a private enterprise system is rather
> like
> discussing whethr one's pet spaniel is or is nota a unicorn. The
> U.S. is
> a capitalist nation, and the degree of public or private ownership is
> important in run-of-the-mill politics but has no theoretical
> signficance. The assumption that public ownership is or can be a
> "socialist" element within a capitalist society is the assumption that
> we can get to heaven in a rocking chair as capitalism peacefully
> drifts
> into socialism. It is a repudiation of Luxemburg's "socialism or
> barbarism" and her key insight that, given the ultimaaaate rule of
> contingency in human history, barbarism is at least as likely an
> outcome
> as socialism.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk