Re: [Marxism] Temporary nationalizations

[Bill O'Connor <billyoc@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Bill O. writes, "Perhaps  a demand  that no  re-privatizations be  allowed
> until  the tax money used  for this bailout  is repaid in  full."
>
> But why is it any concern of ours whether the bourgeoisie hold their
> property as a sole proprietorship, a joint stock company, a partnership, or
> a nationalized firm?

Well, if it's nationalized, I'm a 1/300,000,000th part owner, right?  Or
do you mean that that makes us all in on the bourgeois scam?  I'm not
sure I get you here.

> It is clear as can be that the nationalizations that have already taken
> place and those that are coming are in the nature of bankruptcy
> restructurings. Do we go around demanding firms file for Chapter 11? Then
> why in this case should we be doing the equivalent? 

I thought Chapter 11 actions were between businesses and their
creditors.  Is treasury money involved?

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu