During the Your Party founding conference Zarah Sultana was queried on her view of socialism and replied that she wanted to nationalise the entire economy. This led Owen Jones and others to challenge this view. 

When people talk about socialism the idea of nationalisation of the economy is usually a large part of it because it means taking key industries out of the private sector and into public ownership. This was a large part of the Labour programme of Clement Attlee’s government. 

When asked to expand on ‘nationalise everything’, Sultana said: 

That looks like a socialist transformation of the country where we nationalise utilities, we nationalise energy, we nationalise transport, we nationalise communications, including the internet. We also have to broaden our horizons.

Her comments sparked debate on socialist economics. So here are key points to think about in this debate!

Socialists want to socialise the economy. which means taking it out of private ownership. This is because private ownership and market competition is bad for two reasons; it means profits only enrich a tiny number of people and there is unnecessary waste created through corporations fighting for market share. 

Nationalisation is usually associated with the capitalist state running industries like coal, steel and railways (which the Labour government did after World War Two under Clement Attlee). Whilst socialists support nationalisation, as it is better to have an industry not in the private sector enriching a few individuals, the post war nationalisation programme resulted in industries that were still corporate, hierarchical and often didn’t always provide a good service to consumers. In other words they carried on the worst aspects of the private sector. 

German socialist Frederich Engels criticised the idea that all state ownership is socialism back in the 1870s:

Since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions…

James Connolly – an Irish socialist murdered by the British state in 1916 for fighting for Irish independence – also made the important point that we needed to change the basis of how government operates:

To the cry of the middle class reformers, ‘make this or that the property of the government,’ we reply, ‘yes, in proportion as the workers are ready to make the government their property.’

We are clear that in the class struggle against exploitation and environmental degradation, sections of the middle classes and small business owners are natural allies of the workers movement. They live precarious lives, crushed by big business and often struggling with debt. They are also victims of a capitalist system that benefits a tiny minority whilst impoverishing ‘the little person’. 

Socialists want a radically different type of state, not one that is bureaucratic, undemocratic and violent like the capitalist state we currently live under. We need democracy across society, including in workplaces and our local communities. The state that exists under socialism is of a radically different model, and is ideally shrinking to be replaced with better forms of self governance. 

The key shift in a post-capitalist society is that we start to replace the anarchy of market capitalism with a democratic plan of production and distribution, to ensure everyone’s needs are met. 

We can use the latest technology to help with planning – as long as it is environmentally sustainable – but it will be primarily democratic forums of people making decisions based on the principle of subsidiarity, if a decision can be made and acted on locally, then it should be.  

In this sense, key industries that are central to economic production and social life will no doubt be democratically run on a national (and eventually international) basis. But smaller scale industries or enterprises will be managed on a regional or local level.

The key question is whether ‘every fish and chip shop’ has to be nationalised. Discussions of ‘nationalisation’ here are mostly unhelpful. Under socialism there will be plenty of small scale cooperatives and enterprises. If someone is a great chef and wants to open a restaurant on their own then there will be ways to do that through democratic local economics.

In my book Reclaiming The Future (Pluto Books, 2024), I explained the role of ‘small businesses’ under socialism after the large scale industries have been socialised to allow for a fundamental reorganisation of the economy:

Small businesses, known as SMEs (small and medium enterprises) would initially still exist and would likely remain privately owned. Workers in these sectors, even under a workers’ government, might not have the consciousness to take control of their workplaces. Trades people (plumbers, electricians, etc.) might still like to be self-employed, though they would likely also have to compete with an expanded municipal direct labour organisation.

These enterprises would be factored into the plan through balancing their requirements of and contributions to the socialised parts of the economy. A local fish and chip shop wouldn’t be run by a central planning authority, but it would have to buy its fish and potatoes from producers who might be operating under a plan of production. These sections of the economy would also be taxed by any workers’ government to help fund the social wage, investment and so on. However, in return they would be protected from the perils of bankruptcy and financial ruin, as well as ensure a price-control guarantee on any consumer items sold.

The key principle is that there will be space for human creativity and production based on needs. If your idea for a restaurant ends up not being popular then it will no doubt close down to make way for other forms of economic activity, but no one would be left bankrupt because their idea didn’t take off. 

The other principle is that no one will get personally rich from any economic activity. Socialist economics is about de-commodifying the economy, expanding universal services and social provision and reducing our reliance on wages to survive. The mark of success of any socialist economy is not personal enrichment but a good quality of life for all, reduced working week and greater parts of the economy being decommodified as they are brought into a democratic plan of production. 

The key message from Sultana. which she said in her conference speech, was that the end goal is to improve life for humanity. Nationalisations, workers cooperatives, credit unions, whatever other economic proposals exist, are only tools to that end, not the end in themselves. 

Whether you agree with Sultana’s views or not, at least it has provoked a useful debate on what a post-capitalist society might look like.  AntiCapitalist Resistance has published a proposal for the Your Party Manifesto on ecosocialism and how we can make life better for everyone under a post-capitalist society.

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government Conservative Party COVID-19 EcoSocialism Elections Europe Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza Imperialism Israel Italy Keir Starmer Labour Party Long Read Marxism Marxist Theory Palestine pandemic Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America War