A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
No. High skilled trades end up overvaluing their products and having a monopoly they demand a un-proportionately large payment.
This is why becoming a doctor costs so much money in western countries and why they also make lots of money. They gate keep the knowledge behind a pay wall and massive amounts of artificial difficulty in order to keep scarcity high and wages higher.
The potential for corrupt guild officials is just as high for government officials.
Without a socialist state, nationalization forwards capitalist interests. This is the core distinction between state capitalism, and a socialist nationalization. The conquest of political power by the working classes is the first step.
Outside of that, in a capitalist state, a worker guild is fine. It isn't overthrowing the system, and your organizing efforts should be with a revolutionary party, but from a labor perspective it can be nicer for those working there as a temporary measure.
At the same time, nationalization may make it even easier to collectivize production and distribution. Lenin talks about this in the Tax in Kind, when Germany was described as state capitalist with a Junker-imperialist state, and that economically it was an advance on the largely small and disparate manufacturing of Russia. The RSFSR's advantage was in having a socialist state, and thus "state capitalism" (always stressed as not true state capitalism like Germany by Lenin) was an advance towards socialism during the NEP.
It isn’t overthrowing the system, and your organizing efforts should be with a revolutionary party, but from a labor perspective it can be nicer for those working there as a temporary measure.
Umm... I am sorry, Mr. Cowbee. I am not a socialist. I am still a radical centrist. But what you said is right
Without a socialist state, nationalization forwards capitalist interests.
or capitalist logic. My state companies do not bring prosperity and are no different from private companies because of this.
I am sorry if my english is bad.
No worries! And your English is good, I understand your intent! The important distinction here is the class character of the state, and that's why state-run companies and private companies seem so similar to you in a capitalist state, as the class in charge is the same.
May be. But keep in mind workers will need credit provided by the state to operate and expand (and biases show up there instead).
youre not gonna believe why your state is corrupt...
Eh corruption and nepotism definitely existed in socialist states too and probably always will to some extent, I just think the damage done by corruption pales in comparison to the systemic damage capitalism in general does.
Overfocusing on corruption as one of the biggest problems in society is a liberal narrative because they're incapable of thinking holistically about the entire system.
The difference is that this is actually corruption when it happens in a socialist state and any socialist state which doesn't constantly combat it will eventually succumb to it, whereas "corruption" in a capitalist state is how the system is designed to work, so definitionally not corruption and can be maintained indefinitely.
Can the Worker guild subsidize a failing highly required service business?
State can subsidize it. Worker guild is just a owner so state does not mess around. Beside owner, worker guild is also a economic regulator and economic planner.
I am sorry if my english is bad
Oh, so you mean in your existing state and not in a Socialist state. Am I right?
Your question proceeds from the premise: "the state is corrupt and this is never going to change, so let's design solutions around that". But why not first change the nature of the state itself? Why not seek to eliminate the systemic causes of that corruption? Because what does corruption mean in this context? It means the state is not acting in the interest of the people but in the interest of private capital. This is because the state in question is a bourgeois state and not a proletarian state.
Therefore the most important task of the organized working class is to replace the bourgeois state with a workers' state. From there, you can still decide what is the best form of organization of production for each sector of the economy. Perhaps some industries work better as worker "guilds"/co-operatives, and perhaps others work better as nationalized state enterprises. You want the flexibility to employ whichever method best suits the task. Same with markets vs centralized economic planning.
But the point is that the structure of the economy can only be fundamentally different when the class character of the state changes and it becomes responsive to the will of the people. It's about who holds the power in society. Is it capital or is it the workers? Because without seizure of the state for the working class, economic power can never be fully seized either. Worker co-operatives will operate on a playing field tilted against them, in a capitalist framework that gives systemic advantages to the private capital that controls that state.