The Militant: Nationalize the energy companies! (?)
dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 22 07:41:13 MDT 2003
Below is a disagreement on the editorial:
First, let's be absolutely clear, the energy companies are
in fact "nationalized." Or rather, the national economy is
privatized, or rather the international economy is privatized.
And under the continued rule of the bourgeois class, it's all
samey-same. Do we want Cheney to govern the energy industry?
Well, he already does, or it governs him. Do we want the FERC?
Well, it does, and through the good offices of Mrs. Phil Gramm
appointed to the FERC by Clinton I believe, Enron was given
its license to kill.
During the California energy "crisis," the Los Angeles area
experienced less impact than other areas. Los Angeles never
privatized its electrical generation and distribution system. So is the Militant advocating 2,3, many LAs, perhaps one big
LA? And if so or if not, how does their slogan advance the struggle's emergence as a class struggle? How is it distanct
from pro-regulatory bougeois representatives?
What does nationalization
mean when so much of the US energy requirement is satisfied
from sources outside the US? Shouldn't Canada, Mexico,
Venezuela have some input? The editorial seems to shy away
from the concrete impact of nationalization, the details
of implementation by deciding at the next to last minute,
"electrification and modernization of power grids is a
more pressing need for the semi-colonial world than for the
US or Canada." To me, that seems to completely
contradict the whole argument for pressing forward the
case for nationalization itself.
Nationalization is a statement that tries to avoid the nasty business of getting down to the class relations and the class
control of production. Nowhere in the editorial is their
any mention of who, which class, should control this production,
Indeed, the question is which class, through its political
organizations should control production for the benefit of all.
Why don't we want to ask that question? Are we afraid of
alienating the "farmers," whose interests "are completely tied
to those of fellow working people worldwide." If they are so
completely tied, let's just spit it out in language those
worldwide fellow working people will understand, and that
language includes the word expropriation.
Cue the charges of "ultra-leftism."
More information about the Marxism