Forum Post: Nationalize the multinationals and support small business
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 2:10 p.m. EST by Source
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm pessimistic about OWS making significant impact when two-thirds of the people view government as more problematic than multinationals. Short of stripping the power of multinational corporations through nationalization, I don't see how their subversion of sovereign nations can be stopped. The investment economy runs the US government, and unfortunately, too many people have retirement and savings bound up in the investment economy to support the changes we need.
We need a president willing to nationalize multinationals, while at the same time supporting and encouraging the climate for small business. Small business, including sustainable agriculture, is the lifeblood of vibrant economies. We need leadership which is both anti-business when it comes to multinationals and pro-business when it comes to small business. A problem we face is that small business owners, in general, are hardened by the harsh small business climate in this country. They tend to be conservative (I'm making an obvious generalization) and thus oppose ideas such as nationalization of multinational corporations. They tend to view government as their enemy; i.e., just want fewer taxes and less regulation. So while small business is the country's main hope, it is also the country's main obstacle to defeating the multinationals. We are screwed. We are filled with a country of neo-liberal corporations and neo-con small business owners, both of which subvert the power of government.
As the power of government becomes increasingly subverted, government increasingly tries to subvert the power of the people. It is a vicious cycle. The only hope is to elect a president, through a movement like OWS, who can reach out to small business owners while also seeking to nationalize the multinationals.
Certain industries -- energy, water, transportation, communication networks, banking & currency, trash & sewage, defense, et cetera -- make sense to nationalize, while other industries -- agriculture, textiles/clothing, machining, construction, et cetera -- make sense to break up into small businesses. Without the dual approach of both embracing government and small business, there isn't any hope for real change.
Some things government needs to oversee. Things that involve networks, e.g. energy, water, transportation, etc. It makes no sense to privatize things which are going to be monopolized because they tend to be networked over large numbers of people. A neighboring city of ours had their water system privatized and the costs of services skyrocketted. Now, they are in the midst of a lawsuit with the company and it has become very messy and expensive. The postal service works pretty well if you ask me. I certainly would not want that privatized.
Since we effectively have socialism for corporations at this point with the government giving vast somes of money to banking corporations, etc, I don't consider nationalizing large publically held corporations as stealing. I view it as in the nations' interest to stop these corporations from perverting democracy.
I don't like Hugo Chavez. I suspect he doesn't value small business either.
Nationalization is done in France and Germany, but it done in a way that the government is not running the company its passive shareholder. Its even more oligharchist there but not always bad to have that either . Charles De Gaulle did this during the 30 years glorious years of growth in France, but the companies did as they pleased where no central planning like in the USSR fashion. Airbus and Renault are partially owned by the government compete in world marketplace. Germany partially owns its banks.
Venezuela is poor example as it Hugo Chavez never really cared about creating competitive companies that wanted to sell what consumers wanted etc.
I would, at the very least nationalize all energy resources. All of the oil, coal, and natural gas should belong to the people of this country.
The biggest flaw in your argument is that nationalization of a business is the same as stealing a business. Who owns a business? It's owners own the business, easy. The government does NOT own the business. For the government, for any government, to nationalize a business is stealing.
How did this work out for Hugo Chavez?
Answer (largely from wikipedia): Today, Venezuela suffers from high levels of corruption. They have a BB- credit rating. The economy shrank 5.8 percent in 2010 (mind you the U.S. economy not technically shrunk over this crisis). And of course, it's a dictatorship.
They have THIRTY (30) PERCENT INFLATION.
The biggest problem though, I think, is that no one trusts Venezuela. It's not safe to be an owner in Venezuela.