Socialist thought

Kenzu wrote:

That's impossible, since nationalisation is the opposite of privatisation.

Wrong. If privatisation is understood as the process in which a moral or physical person acquires a certain property for its management or as the setting of the conditions that allow this to happen and the "State" or "nation" is understood as a moral person, and nationalisaton is understood as the process in which the "nation" acquires a certain property though the moral entity called "State" then nationalisation is another kind of privatisation. Why? How?

Simple. The state, which is "who" acquires properties through nationalisation, becomes the one to manage the acquired property in all the levels of operation. It is argued that the state represents all the persons within a nation thus the people "own" that property through the State, yet, this is just oficially as opposed to de facto.

The state, composed by "people's representatives" becomes the owner and manager of this property. When this property creates some economic revenue this revenue is administered in the ways determined by these "people's representatives" without the people being who determines these policies. The revenue is then used, forcibly, in the following ways:
1. To economically sustain the individuals that compose the state.
2. To economically sustain the activity of that property (payrolls and investment in resources mainly).
3. To economically sustain the activities of the state which, depending on the kind of state may be:
a) Social Welfare.
b) Military.
c) Infrastructure.
d) Trade

Among others.

Noteworthy it is that the people are who will work in this property being thus exploited by the owner of this property (the State) as the produce of this property, when means of production, will be sold back to the people for profit without which said property's activity and the owner (State) wouldn't be able to be sustained. That revenue, essential in capitalist economy, comes from surplus value added to the product arbitrarily by the owners of the means of production.

The state in this case is just another entity which by changes in laws legitimizes its property over the means of production. The state operates in the same way as private enterprises with the exception that, forcibly at least in appearance, it will invest in social welfare. When "private" enterprises do so it is called "charity" or "social responsability" in bourgeoisespeak.

Also, even within the context of institutional officiality, when the state was "elected" by X% of the population, even if it was acknowledged that the state does represent that X% of the population, all that isolated part of the population and its representatives would become the "moral person" that owns said property in the same way an enterprise with 1,000 shareholders is privately owned by the moral person constituted by said 1,000 shareholders. (And let me emphazise that this "state representation of people" is just officially, not de facto, thus not in reality).

The only way in which property like land and means of production could be de facto (and obviously "officially") collectively owned would be if everyone affected by and in need of these properties had an equal say and collectively agreed on the way these properties are to be used by all and the fruits of this use shared.

Otherwise, it is de facto privatised.

I didnt get that text very well so excuse me but I think it is called Privatization when the ownership of a business(or other) from the public sector(government)goes to the private sector(business). You say(atleast I think) that they are both the same, in which Privatization and Nationalization go to the same to the same in place of public sector to private sector.

Zealot they are different.... why not make things simple by saying "both are just as bad in my views"

CoolKidX wrote:

I didnt get that text very well so excuse me but I think it is called Privatization when the ownership of a business(or other) from the public sector(government)goes to the private sector(business). You say(atleast I think) that they are both the same, in which Privatization and Nationalization go to the same to the same in place of public sector to private sector.

That's too simple a way to see it, my friend.

Anyone can call themselves as they wish, we've seen people call themselves what they are not and pretend to be that: Castro calling himself communist, Bush calling himself defender of democracy, men calling themselves women... but there can be an enormous gap between "being" and saying that you are.

So well, what makes the "public" sector actually "public"? The state is an entity isolated from the people that acts according to its own rules. The individuals that constituted are "elected" by the people, yet, the people are not the ones comming with the initiatives nor are decisions made, revised and applied by the people: everything is done by the statesmen.

When the state owns a company, what interests does it serve? Those of the state, two of which are necesarily income for the statesmen and finance the activities of the state whichever they might be. The objective of that company, as with any company, must be revenue (profit).

The state and its companies work pretty much like the CEO and managing comitee of a company would, actually, given the economic framework they act in the same way.

Therefore, I'm contending that "public" is nothing but a facade to legitimize yet another exploitative relationship and that "nationalisation" is just another manifestation of privatization.

Liche wrote:

Zealot they are different.... why not make things simple by saying "both are just as bad in my views"

Dear Liche, the statement "they're different" won't do, you have to explain why if you want to make a valid point. I explained why they are not different and the idea that "they're equally bad" was completely not what I meant, I never engaged in subjectivity I just objectively explained why I consider them to be a manifestation of the same phenomenon.

If you want to reply to my point or want to refute it I suggest you read what I wrote and adress it or at least post an arguement as to why, in your view, they're different things, perhaps even opposite. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you make no assertion and much less adress my post.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So well, what makes the "public" sector actually "public"? The state is an entity isolated from the people that acts according to its own rules. The individuals that constituted are "elected" by the people, yet, the people are not the ones comming with the initiatives nor are decisions made, revised and applied by the people: everything is done by the statesmen.

I dont make the rules for words or anything, you can see it has hypocrite in your view if you like.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

When the state owns a company, what interests does it serve? Those of the state, two of which are necesarily income for the statesmen and finance the activities of the state whichever they might be. The objective of that company, as with any company, must be revenue (profit).

Well not really, the intrest is to help the people, example: The state builds a house for the homeless where they can sleep and eat, ofcourse for a price but a very low one, the intrest is to help these people, not to make profit, because they get money from the state, but if they want to do some new things for the homeless they always have the money they gain from the food and such. They can do a little extra for the homeless with that money, and if it was free, anyone onh the street could just grab some food though he/she isn't homeless. If this homeless care house was privatised the first intrest is profit.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Therefore, I'm contending that "public" is nothing but a facade to legitimize yet another exploitative relationship and that "nationalisation" is just another manifestation of privatization.

The people who get a business because of the state privatised it want money, its first on the agenda. However, if the state has it, they don't really care about the profit, maybe a little, but to help people is more important, for privatised businesses this may be important to but not as important as profit as the profit is there money to feed their families.

CoolKidX wrote:

I dont make the rules for words or anything, you can see it has hypocrite in your view if you like.

I didn't even imply you make the rules of words, my friend.

What I'm telling you is that a denomination or the statement that you are is not enough to actually be. It's not enough with calling yourself "woman" to be a woman so when they say that the state is the public sector it doesn't mean it really is.

CKX wrote:

Well not really, the intrest is to help the people, example: The state builds a house for the homeless where they can sleep and eat, ofcourse for a price but a very low one, the intrest is to help these people, not to make profit, because they get money from the state, but if they want to do some new things for the homeless they always have the money they gain from the food and such. They can do a little extra for the homeless with that money, and if it was free, anyone onh the street could just grab some food though he/she isn't homeless. If this homeless care house was privatised the first intrest is profit.

The interest of any capitalist economic entity is profit first. You know why? Because in profit is where the sustainability of the enterprise is held. A profitless enterprise in a capitalist framework cannot operate and is prone to collapse, it develops a deficit.

It's not even matter of morality or policies, it's matter of plain survival within a capitalist framework. It just can't be otherwise if the enterprise is to keep existing.

Now, what happens with the money got by these enterprises? It necesarily goes as well to the pockets of the statesmen. They have to have their salaries and they can only come from state's incomes which are only two: taxation and state-owned enterprises.

What you talked about in your example my friend was social welfare as a State's activity: They use money to open a free shelter for the homeless which operates with two things: resources and people both of which have a cost. In this case they're subsidizing this shelter with the revenues from their enterprises. But, what happens, for example, with the shares of the Swedish government in Absolute or IKEA? These companies are 100% profit oriented. The revenues go to all the shareholders and the State is one of those shareholders.

The State decides what to do with those revenues: they go to free healthcare for people, they may go to education, they may go to urban infrastructure, may be used to pay Prime ministers and bureaucrats, used for military expenditures, etc.

It's not different from when the owners of an enterprise do what they please with the revenues of their company(ies): they can donate to charity (social welfare), they can donate to schools, they can invest in armies of bodyguards.

CKX wrote:

The people who get a business because of the state privatised it want money, its first on the agenda. However, if the state has it, they don't really care about the profit, maybe a little, but to help people is more important, for privatised businesses this may be important to but not as important as profit as the profit is there money to feed their families.

As I said already my friend, it's not matter of morality or not, it's of enterprise survival. And not only that, whether the state's money is used to help people or not depends greatly on the kind of government which determine the objectives of the government.

And it's as well not even matter of whether the main objective is help people or not, it's matter of who owns the enterprises and who decides how they're used.

Why do you think the USSR collapsed? It wasn't because of the "force of market" and whatever shit. USSR was a capitalist economy that was practically in its whole non-profit oriented:

The soviet state provided people with free healthcare, free education, free housing, free electricity, free gas, etc. But all these things had a cost to the soviet state. These things gave no profit to the soviet state but were fairly and constantly expensive and so created a strong deficit within the soviet economy.

Then, the soviet state invested massively in infrastructure, another investment that gave no profit at all. Then in heavy industry and such, again, with no profits whatsoever and actually, like the previous one, with constant expenditures like mantainance and operation.

Then the soviet state massively invested in scientific research becoming a leading power in Science. But this gives no economic profit unless you sell what you develop scientifically right? USSR didn't make much money out of putting Yuriy Gagarin on space.

And then comes the lovely military industry. Expensive as hell, generating no profit, generating massive constant expenditures and, in case of war, even permanent loss. And this did happen in WWII, Sino-Soviet War and of course and very importantly, the massively draining Afghanistan War.

Which products gave profit to the massive soviet enterprise? Food, clothing, cars, etc... but the state was too busy with military, infrastructure and industry to really give much importance to this.

When did the USSR reach its economic peak? When a lot of industrial output was taken away from conventional military research and production and diverted into consumer goods during Khrushyov's era. Those products were sold by the soviet state to the soviet people for profit.

However there's a problem with this all the burden of exploitation was within the soviet workers. Prices rose as soviet government needed to increase production and as it promoted an incipient consumerism and it had to keep wages' increase as low as possible not to get to deficit. But well, it would have taken more time with that scheme than what happened with Brezhnev's ultra militarized period.

What happened with Brezhnev's military period? Tanks, planes, missiles, warships and submarines where produced en masse while people were making ques for toilet paper and food. It was massive-expenditure period that was crowned with the Afghanistan War.

And of course another expenditure was the income of the Soviet statesmen: their dachas here and there, their travels around the world, their luxury cars, their vacations and overall just their income to eat, dress, drink, shower, turn on the light etc. From the Chairman of the CPSU to the petty bureaucrat.

The thing here is that it doesn't matter what the State does with it's enterprise, it has to be profit-oriented or die and the State is unilateraly owning and managing everything as a separate entity that may or may not listen to popular demands from time to time, partially or fully.

The state decides what to do with enterprises, whether it is providing free healthcare or buying 2,000 tanks, or both. But these enterprises nee to have some income sustaining them, it's not matter of choice, wether its a profit generated by them or subsidizing.

The point of the "privatisation vs. nationalisation" discussion is whether nationalisation could be considered a kind of privatisation. I argue that yes, it can for the state unilateraly owns and decides how the nationalized property is to be used acting as an entity separated from the collective (pretty much like a firm or a comitee of shareholders) regardless of how it is used.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I didn't even imply you make the rules of words, my friend.

What I'm telling you is that a denomination or the statement that you are is not enough to actually be. It's not enough with calling yourself "woman" to be a woman so when they say that the state is the public sector it doesn't mean it really is.

Lol you should sue a wordbook company for a invalid word.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Now, what happens with the money got by these enterprises? It necesarily goes as well to the pockets of the statesmen. They have to have their salaries and they can only come from state's incomes which are only two: taxation and state-owned enterprises.

I am sure that 90% will be from taxation since a state-owned enterpsie will have money from taxation aswell and when a state-owned enterprise makes profit they don't give it to the state neccasirly, they use it for their own so they can for example do a little extra for the people's comfort or such, they can give it to the state to, but this profit will not be as much as they get from the state, if they do get more profit or the same amount of money they get from the state, and if the state isnt retarted, the state would privatised it since they can stand on their own legs.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

What you talked about in your example my friend was social welfare as a State's activity: They use money to open a free shelter for the homeless which operates with two things: resources and people both of which have a cost. In this case they're subsidizing this shelter with the revenues from their enterprises. But, what happens, for example, with the shares of the Swedish government in Absolute or IKEA? These companies are 100% profit oriented. The revenues go to all the shareholders and the State is one of those shareholders.

The State decides what to do with those revenues: they go to free healthcare for people, they may go to education, they may go to urban infrastructure, may be used to pay Prime ministers and bureaucrats, used for military expenditures, etc.

It's not different from when the owners of an enterprise do what they please with the revenues of their company(ies): they can donate to charity (social welfare), they can donate to schools, they can invest in armies of bodyguards.

Which is good, I mean they dont use the money for their own good, and with their I mean the statesmen, it doesn't go to the bosses at IKEA for their(the bosses) good but they go to the state, which will go to as you said for example:Social-welfare,School,armies etc etc.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

As I said already my friend, it's not matter of morality or not, it's of enterprise survival. And not only that, whether the state's money is used to help people or not depends greatly on the kind of government which determine the objectives of the government.

A enterprise survival is based upon the state, if not, they obviously make more/same amount of money then they get from the state so that they can stand on own legs, which I already said above, they probably would get privatised then.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Why do you think the USSR collapsed? It wasn't because of the "force of market" and whatever shit. USSR was a capitalist economy that was practically in its whole non-profit oriented:

The soviet state provided people with free healthcare, free education, free housing, free electricity, free gas, etc. But all these things had a cost to the soviet state. These things gave no profit to the soviet state but were fairly and constantly expensive and so created a strong deficit within the soviet economy.

Then, the soviet state invested massively in infrastructure, another investment that gave no profit at all. Then in heavy industry and such, again, with no profits whatsoever and actually, like the previous one, with constant expenditures like mantainance and operation.

Then the soviet state massively invested in scientific research becoming a leading power in Science. But this gives no economic profit unless you sell what you develop scientifically right? USSR didn't make much money out of putting Yuriy Gagarin on space.

And then comes the lovely military industry. Expensive as hell, generating no profit, generating massive constant expenditures and, in case of war, even permanent loss. And this did happen in WWII, Sino-Soviet War and of course and very importantly, the massively draining Afghanistan War.

Which products gave profit to the massive soviet enterprise? Food, clothing, cars, etc... but the state was too busy with military, infrastructure and industry to really give much importance to this.

When did the USSR reach its economic peak? When a lot of industrial output was taken away from conventional military research and production and diverted into consumer goods during Khrushyov's era. Those products were sold by the soviet state to the soviet people for profit.

Then I can see why you Communists think that money shoudl leave, so the state can provide all this without collapsing. But however, I think their should be a balance, and with that I mean that some business should be state-owned or nationalized and that other businesses should be privatised, and ofcourse this would get me in the middle of right and left but when time comes more and more business would get privatised I think, that's ofcourse another topic.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

However there's a problem with this all the burden of exploitation was within the soviet workers. Prices rose as soviet government needed to increase production and as it promoted an incipient consumerism and it had to keep wages' increase as low as possible not to get to deficit. But well, it would have taken more time with that scheme than what happened with Brezhnev's ultra militarized period.

What happened with Brezhnev's military period? Tanks, planes, missiles, warships and submarines where produced en masse while people were making ques for toilet paper and food. It was massive-expenditure period that was crowned with the Afghanistan War.

And of course another expenditure was the income of the Soviet statesmen: their dachas here and there, their travels around the world, their luxury cars, their vacations and overall just their income to eat, dress, drink, shower, turn on the light etc. From the Chairman of the CPSU to the petty bureaucrat.

The thing here is that it doesn't matter what the State does with it's enterprise, it has to be profit-oriented or die and the State is unilateraly owning and managing everything as a separate entity that may or may not listen to popular demands from time to time, partially or fully.

The state decides what to do with enterprises, whether it is providing free healthcare or buying 2,000 tanks, or both. But these enterprises nee to have some income sustaining them, it's not matter of choice, wether its a profit generated by them or subsidizing.

Indeed good Sir, they need a substain to let these business keep up, that can be: Profit from the own business or from tax money, which is from the state.

CoolKidX wrote:

Lol you should sue a wordbook company for a invalid word.

Again, not what I meant CK

"Public" has a definition, right? We all agree with that definition. The problem is when this definition is applied to something that really isn't or does not fit with that definition. Like when "communism" is employed to refer to USSR's state capitalism.

CKX wrote:

I am sure that 90% will be from taxation since a state-owned enterpsie will have money from taxation aswell and when a state-owned enterprise makes profit they don't give it to the state neccasirly, they use it for their own so they can for example do a little extra for the people's comfort or such, they can give it to the state to, but this profit will not be as much as they get from the state, if they do get more profit or the same amount of money they get from the state, and if the state isnt retarted, the state would privatised it since they can stand on their own legs.

The state has an advantage when putting entrprises or exporpiating them. The state has taxes and these taxes can be used to buy enterprises, start them or subsidize them.

The way in which State owned companies may work is completely varied but is always determined by the state. The state determines the role of the enterprise and how revenues will be used for it is the owner.

According to state's objectives is how these state owned enterprises will work and have their revenue managed.

Besides, there's a problem with taxation. Taxes are entirely reliant on others' incomes whether indidividuals' incomes, enterprises' incomes or both.

Everyone is searching for profit in capitalism and taxation creates the need for this profit to be larger.

CKX wrote:

Which is good, I mean they dont use the money for their own good, and with their I mean the statesmen, it doesn't go to the bosses at IKEA for their(the bosses) good but they go to the state, which will go to as you said for example:Social-welfare,School,armies etc etc.

So it's good that the state manages revenues in the way it wants?

CKX wrote:

A enterprise survival is based upon the state, if not, they obviously make more/same amount of money then they get from the state so that they can stand on own legs, which I already said above, they probably would get privatised then.

The survival of a company depends on income. When the company is state owned it has two sources revenue and state funds which may come from taxation mainly.

If the enterprise is not succesful or not profit oriented, to keep it afloat the state has to subsidize it and it stops being a profitable business. It becomes a factor of deficit within the State's economy forcing the state to either increase other sources of revenue or simply get rid of it regardless of whether it is covering a need or not and is being succesful or not.

CKX wrote:

Then I can see why you Communists think that money shoudl leave, so the state can provide all this without collapsing.

Nope. We communists think there should be no state at all. For us there's no difference between something like USSR's state or a bunch of enterprises and their shareholders protected and supported by a "liberal" State.

What you talk about here is a Scientifically Rationalist Social State.

CKX wrote:

But however, I think their should be a balance, and with that I mean that some business should be state-owned or nationalized and that other businesses should be privatised, and ofcourse this would get me in the middle of right and left but when time comes more and more business would get privatised I think, that's ofcourse another topic.

And we commies think no business should be privately owned by any entity for we want everything to be in the hands of everyone.

I'm contending that nationalisation and privatisation are the same thing regardless of the use of property by any of the entities. It's the entity's call, not everyone's call so it is private no matter who the entity is.

CKX wrote:

Indeed good Sir, they need a substain to let these business keep up, that can be: Profit from the own business or from tax money, which is from the state.

Yup, that's what I said and it's more convenient to have double income than expenditure. Taxes come from people and enterprises which are profit oriented so after all even subsidies come from profit-oriented sources.

The state will obviously create enterprises to have revenue.

But well this is another topic really for it is about the operation and objectives of State owned enterprises while the origin of this discussion was on whether Nationalization and privatization are the same thing performed by different entities or not and on whether State property can be considered private property or not.

Which reminds me Forbes. They were saying Castro's assets are as high as $900 million worth in properties like land, factories, houses blah blah blah. Much in relation to him being the private owner of Cuba. That would probably apply if the premise that privatization and nationalization are the same shit with different names and comming from different asses. If they think that state property is public then they'd be applying double standards, being contradictory or falling into the silly "if we do it is K, if you do it's bad". Just slightly related.

Anyway I kindly invite you CKX to refute my thesis that nationalisation is another kind of privatisation.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Again, not what I meant CK

"Public" has a definition, right? We all agree with that definition. The problem is when this definition is applied to something that really isn't or does not fit with that definition. Like when "communism" is employed to refer to USSR's state capitalism.

Let me quote Mr Wikipedia

"The public sector is the part of economic and administrative life that deals with the delivery of goods and services by and for the government, whether national, regional or local/municipal"

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The state has an advantage when putting entrprises or exporpiating them. The state has taxes and these taxes can be used to buy enterprises, start them or subsidize them.

The way in which State owned companies may work is completely varied but is always determined by the state. The state determines the role of the enterprise and how revenues will be used for it is the owner.

According to state's objectives is how these state owned enterprises will work and have their revenue managed.

Besides, there's a problem with taxation. Taxes are entirely reliant on others' incomes whether indidividuals' incomes, enterprises' incomes or both.

Everyone is searching for profit in capitalism and taxation creates the need for this profit to be larger.

No because, if a business is state-owned and let's take the go'ol hobo home again, it is not searching for profit, ofcourse not, its there to help these homeless people. The eye for profit of that hobo home becomes not larger but smaller because: They can survive of the money they get from the government. And because of that why need profit? So that the state can have that money back? No otherwise its a loan.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So it's good that the state manages revenues in the way it wants?

That depends, ofcourse if a government is not R-tarted they will have a few rules, one of those rules will most likely to be that the profit they gain may not be used for personal stuff and salaries, in that way the profit they get can only be used for the business and not their own good, and then the guy from the business can decide on what of the business, maybe better chairs etc.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The survival of a company depends on income. When the company is state owned it has two sources revenue and state funds which may come from taxation mainly.

If the enterprise is not succesful or not profit oriented, to keep it afloat the state has to subsidize it and it stops being a profitable business. It becomes a factor of deficit within the State's economy forcing the state to either increase other sources of revenue or simply get rid of it regardless of whether it is covering a need or not and is being succesful or not.

Non-profit oriented business get ofcourse if from the state, a subside/money from the state. But the tax the state gets is much, one business won't stop the government from spending on them I mean they got money enough, ofcourse in crisis that money may go lower but on a normal base the money just stays on the same amount. Ofcourse right-wing parties would maybe privatise the business because they get less tax money if they are in control because as I know most right-wing parties don't support high taxes or porgressive taxes. A left-wing usually supports some higher taxes(mostly on rich folks) and/or progressive taxes, that way the government gets more money from tax => more tax money to spend => state-owned businesses survive.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The state will obviously create enterprises to have revenue.

Well not really, why should the state need money? They already have enough from taxation.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Anyway I kindly invite you CKX to refute my thesis that nationalisation is another kind of privatisation.

I wish I could, but its just that without a state there can not be nationalisation, you need a state. If business is not state owned or a business ownership is not from the state it is privatisation. That are just the words mean, you may call your theory something else then nationalisation but its just something diffrent and not same.

CoolKidX wrote:

Let me quote Mr Wikipedia

"The public sector is the part of economic and administrative life that deals with the delivery of goods and services by and for the government, whether national, regional or local/municipal"

Which is of course is misguiding making people think government is actually representative of people and peolpe's interests.

It's convenient to call it "public" to deter attention from the implications.

CKX wrote:

No because, if a business is state-owned and let's take the go'ol hobo home again, it is not searching for profit, ofcourse not, its there to help these homeless people. The eye for profit of that hobo home becomes not larger but smaller because: They can survive of the money they get from the government. And because of that why need profit? So that the state can have that money back? No otherwise its a loan.

We're talking about two different things my friend. A "hobo-house" as you call it is merely social welfare. It's something not intended to generate profit, it's not an enterprise. But it demands investment and the only way to keep that investment is through having income sources which are two: taxation and revenue by state owned companies.

CKX wrote:

That depends, ofcourse if a government is not R-tarted they will have a few rules, one of those rules will most likely to be that the profit they gain may not be used for personal stuff and salaries, in that way the profit they get can only be used for the business and not their own good, and then the guy from the business can decide on what of the business, maybe better chairs etc.

The government owns things and decides what to do with them. that said, the revenue of a State owned company is used according to State's interests.

All revenue of the state be it taxation or income from state-owned companies are to be used in the next:

1. State manteinance: Payroll of all the individuals that conform the state.
2. Manteinance of income sources: Reinvestment in income sources like companies.
3. Possibly on welfare like "free" health care, education and such. All subsidized by State's incomes.
4. Infrastructure which can actually be profit-oriented when, for example you have to pay to use a road or a bridge.
5. Military.

Any single state adventure.

The thing here is that it's the state making the call and using the revenue as it wishes.

CKX wrote:

Non-profit oriented business get ofcourse if from the state, a subside/money from the state.

Yeah, that's why they're not business. They're just social welfare.

CKX wrote:

But the tax the state gets is much, one business won't stop the government from spending on them I mean they got money enough, ofcourse in crisis that money may go lower but on a normal base the money just stays on the same amount.

There is not a definite ammount of money taken from taxation. It varies according to taxation policies. Either way this is irrelevant.

Taxation carries within itself the problem of increasing expenditures for enterprises and individuals. It has the same origin as revenue except that it comes from non-governmental entities. That's all. It's income generated by profit-oriented entities taken arbitrarily by the state to suffice its agenda, whether it includes social welfare or not, it depends on how populist the government is or how relevant within their agenda creating the illusion of welbeing and welfare is.

CKX wrote:

Ofcourse right-wing parties would maybe privatise the business because they get less tax money if they are in control because as I know most right-wing parties don't support high taxes or porgressive taxes.

Right wing governments don't care much about taxes because they don't give a damn about creating social welfare illusions. They basically work for the bourgeoisie as protectors of their interests within the nation and abroad and the bourgeoisie finances them. It's pretty simple. They may have shares in some companies and profit from there, have some sporadic taxation or rely on donations.

CKX wrote:

A left-wing usually supports some higher taxes(mostly on rich folks) and/or progressive taxes, that way the government gets more money from tax => more tax money to spend => state-owned businesses survive.

My friend, one thing is a business and other social welfare. Populist or welfarist states will try to get as much income as possible to subsidize their "free" or non-profit oriented wlefare projects yet that is impossible within a capitalist framework:

Taxation implies companies have to spend more which implies rising prices and or keeping wages low. It also implies having people earn less or have to spend more wanting those greater incomes. Entering a vicious cycle.

If there are state owned companies then the workers work for the state and become both an expenditure for the state as a possible source of income, creating another vicious cycle.

CKX wrote:

Well not really, why should the state need money? They already have enough from taxation.

What is enough or not is determined by expenditure and extra sources of income don't hurt at all.

CKX wrote:

I wish I could, but its just that without a state there can not be nationalisation, you need a state. If business is not state owned or a business ownership is not from the state it is privatisation. That are just the words mean, you may call your theory something else then nationalisation but its just something diffrent and not same.

No, no. I'm talking about the actual context. If you have time try reading my first reply to Kenzu, if you have doubts ask them to me doubt by doubt and I'll clarify and then we can debate. If you wish.

I imagine this like, every ones jumping on Zealots back and hes ripping them off and throwing them, but they keep running up to him.