@number10gov @Ed_Miliband. pre-Thatcher we had a mix of State ownership and Capitalism that worked.

A T.V. progam on Marxism explained why, according to Karl Marx, Capitalism must fail.
It contrasted today’s world with that of Marx, pointing out that Globalism and the digital revolution had created a super-large labour pool, which had allowed unfettered Capitalism to run rampant and lead to an unstable situation, which relied on consumerism.

It blamed this consumerism on individual debt created by credit cards and creating the sub-prime market

It blamed the sub-prime market for being the bursting bubble that triggered the present cash panic.
For some reason it ignored the extra political pressure put on by the artificial devices of politicians, such as Quantative easing to fund Euro bonds (national credit card) and “support” the Euro.
it lamely ended by rounding on Marx complaining that he hadn’t offered an alternative to Capitalism.

The last is not quite true.

Marx called for workers to seize control of the means of production and to an extent this is the answer.

In S.America where unfettered Capitalism brought economies close to collapse, their Governments drew back from the edge of doom by re-nationalising the banks and other State industries, providing evidence that the answer lies in a combination of Capitalism and State ownership.

This was the situation in the UK before Margaret Thatcher became a disciple of Friedmanism.
Those services, where social care needs to take precedence over the profit motive, where the employees are vocational, need to be in State control.

Under Friedmanism we have the disjointed spectacle of Capitalists trying to make a profit from direct State funding, rather than actually maximising the service provided.
In State utilities, i.e. the infrastructure that Government readily nationalises, when on a war-footing, the organisations operate in an artificial market, where it is in the interest of corporate structures to combine and form cartels, knowing that The State must subsidise, or support their pricing structures, in order to assure that the life blood of the Nation isn’t cut off.
All else can be genuinely free market.
In this mixture of private and direct state ownership, Marxist philosophy would allow for the capitalist principle to operate successfully.
By providing a sphere, where the profit motive strives to suppress Labour costs, the national wage can’t rise so much that it makes the nation uncompetitive in a global market.

By providing a sphere, where The State ensures the welfare of its citizens and where it protects its own means of functioning, you have a brake on the Capitalist exploitation of an over-large labour pool, by siphoning of a proportion of this pool and making the Free market compete for the more attractive workers.

At the same time the State owned organisation’s provideĀ  a constant source of consumers to create a steady demand for the goods being produced by the Free market, so the Capitalists don’t cut their own throats.

The balance of the two must need be periodically adjusted, possibly by allowing some of the utilities to compete with the state run utilities e.g. as was originally intended with BBC versus ITV .

In some area’s, we are crying out for State intervention e.g. Private bus companies won’t run adequate rural services and these need to be run as a Social service.

Look at what we had and consider going back to the future, or some version of it.


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: