At 9:36 AM -0400 27/8/09, D. T. cochrane wrote:
>I think the ownership class might beg to differ.
That doesn't prove anything though, the ownership class isn't all that smart by and large.
>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.
A lot of privatisation is simply another form of selling government bonds, or a substitute for it. Government sells government offices and leases them back, for instance. Uses the money to repay government debt. Or government sells government owned enterprise and forgoes profit (or subsidises subsequent private losses.)
All that's happening is a jiggling of government versus private balance sheet. Instead of making money (accumulation, as you put it) from lending money to the government, someone is making money by charging rent to the government for the privatised building. Sure, shares in the privatised telco can be bought and sold. But the government bonds could be bought and sold too.
>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?
Why not? You think capitalists are infallible geniuses or something? They are just people who haven't lost their money yet. ;-)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas