Re: It's *capitalism* that kills, not just privatization or deregulation

["D OC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

But I do not believe we can honestly say that a "nationalized,"
"europeanized" or "non-profit" air traffic control system would  be better
(or worse) than current arrangements. The truth is that there isn't a dime's
worth of difference whether the capitalists run their air traffic control
system through their companies, through their national states, through one
of their "non-profit" corporations, or through their eurocracy. It would
still represent an integral part of the air transport industry; and whether
or not profits are booked in the name of an air traffic control company, su
a company, non-profit or bureaucracy would *still* be a part of this entire
profit-making machine and subject to all the pressures that flow therefrom.

What a load of ultra-leftist horse manure. No appreciation of the potential
of democratic avenues of control, no appreciation of the benefits of greater
socialisation within the sector. Let's just sit back and wait till the
masses rise up and destroy capitalism. Let's not play any part in defending
public ownership or management of sectors. Just tell the Trade Unions that
they needn't worry about whether they are run by a profit-mad private sector
employer or by a state or non-profit taking trust (monitored by an
authorised watchdog).

I'm sure you would agree with Maggie Thatcher who told the miners that in
the private sector they wouldn't survive as a profitable sector, therefore
it was unfair to expect the public sector to keep them in a job. They would,
of course, feel happy knowing that they would have the same standards of
employment working under the Public Sector as the Private one.

Why don't we all forget about defending privatisation - why it's just the
same under 'their' state structures.

The point is José, for better or for worse the 'bourgeois' State is supposed
to be basically democratic - it's not, we all know that, but it offers us
some space in which to agitate. The second point is that in the case of air
traffic control, the state will generally not cut safety below what is
deemed acceptable - if for no other reason, because of it's unlimited
liability and because of likely union pressure. In a private sector
business, such reasons to maintain safety go out the window. Just read the
statements from any trade union in the sector. The final point is that the
State has the capacity to make a decision to 'prop up' a sector classified
as vital to national interests even when it's unprofitable. Maggie chose not
to, even when the costs of rationalisation exceeded the costs of subvention
(e.g. in the Coal Mining Sector) - however, the Tories or any other
Government will have to put themselves on the line to defend such a
position. With a private company, the only thing that matters is the
shareholders in a world where trade unions are being run-down continually.
The only restraint on safety standards being lowered in that scenario is
that the businesses would need to cover any liabilities they would suffer
with an insurer; they usually do so with a dodgy small insurer which can
shut down overnight and then the liability comes back to the state. I have
seen this happen in privatisations - they talk about 'sharing the risk' with
the private sector - we all know who carries the can - its ordinary
tax-payers.

D.



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.