Sale of semi-state companies.

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
According to the Four-Year Plan supplement in the Indo (Thursday 25 November) the Government will sell off some semi-states companies, including the ESB and Board Gais, to cover the cost of the interest on the $85 billion IMF/EU loan. It's about time that these companies were privatised. It'll bring about competition in the electricity and gas industries, which will be good for the consumer, and break the stranglehold of the trade union movement in these industries. I cannot understand why the European Commission, given that it is very fond of the free market, has not called for the privatisation of the semi-states.
 


Broke

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
478
According to the Four-Year Plan supplement in the Indo (Thursday 25 November) the Government will sell off some semi-states companies, including the ESB and Board Gais, to cover the cost of the interest on the $85 billion IMF/EU loan. It's about time that these companies were privatised. It'll bring about competition in the electricity and gas industries, which will be good for the consumer, and break the stranglehold of the trade union movement in these industries. I cannot understand why the European Commission, given that it is very fond of the free market, has not called for the privatisation of the semi-states.
The IMF always get goverments to sell of state companies when they lend them money.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Under no circumstances should the Irish people allow any more public enterprises to be privatised. These are the only good Irish companies left. If the spivs get their hands on them, they will be asset stripped like Eircom was, and their workers turned into low paid temps.
 

Lilliwhite

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
27
Selling the generating portion of ESB is not really a problem but if the network is sold we are facing another Eircom mess
 

charley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
1,247
What will happen to all the nepotism in the ESB when it falls into private hands?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
What will happen to all the nepotism in the ESB when it falls into private hands?
It will be replaced by nepotism for private profit?
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,539
Selling the generating portion of ESB is not really a problem but if the network is sold we are facing another Eircom mess
Its highly unlikely that the grid will be sold, it needs massive investment, I doubt anyone other than the state would be interested.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
I wrote this on another thread:



Privatisation is Privation


A little etymology to get us started:

The word "private" comes from the Latin verb "prīvāre" to rob. The noun "prīvātus" was formed from the verb, and came to mean "taken away" (from public affairs.) Also the noun "prīvātiōn" meant "a taking away."

Nothing very surprising here, in capitalist society, privatisation means the taking of public enterprise away from the people, and leaving us either without it, or dependant on private profit (unless it's private loss, in which case, we have to pay for it.)

But, the story goes a good deal deeper than this prīvātiōn. In capitalist society, we are deprived of our very selves. Many people who are aware of Marx's writings think that he meant that the worker alienates himself through the selling of his labour, i.e. in becoming a wage-slave, he is no longer himself. But, as Marx points out, things are a great deal worse than this.

By the very fact that human labour has been turned into a commodity for sale at the "going rate," ALL labour in capitalist society has been commodified - including the labour of the unemployed. An unemployed person is regarded as simply a wage-slave who has not mangaged to find a buyer for his commodified labour. But, the capitalist economy does not forget his labour just because he cannot sell it. Not at all. He becomes part of the "reserve army of labour" as Marx terms it, which is always vital to capitalist growth (full employment can never be reached in capitalism, without throwing the whole system into recession - a point accepted by all economists, Marxist and bourgeois.) This unemployed wage-slave is paid a type of interest on his "unemployed" labour in the form of dole (and, of course, to stop him actually thinking too much about his situation.)

Of course, one of the biggest areas of labour in the capitalist system is the work carried out by, mostly women, in the home. Child rearing and caring for the sick, etc. The capitalist system has found it difficult to commodify this labour, so it has done all in its power to eliminate it. For example, by making homes so expensive that both partners have to go out to work, and pay commodified child minders to rear their children for them.

Hegel spoke of the Master-Slave dialectic, and spoke of the Master not seeing the slave as a full subject, but rather as a species of object. The slave, on the other hand, regards the Master as a full subject. Hegel, good Englightenment bourgeois that he was, felt that the selling of labour by a private worker was a definite improvement, as the worker faced the capitalist as an equal subject with something to sell that the capitalist wanted to buy, i.e. commodified labour.

Time, however, has proven Helgel's hope to have been misplaced. The modern capitalist regards the seller of commodified labour, i.e. the wage-slave, as no more a subject than the farmer regards his cattle as subjects. In fact, far less. The farmer at least, has some affection for his herd. The modern capitalist regards his workforce as merely objects of profit - "human resources." He gives no emotional recognition to these "human resources" whatsoever (indeed, he would regard doing so as highly "unprofessional." And, to regard another as a subject, one must regard the other with a degree of emotional recognition.) That being the case, the slave owner regarded his slaves far more as subjects than the modern capitalist does, as the slave owner regarded his slaves with a certain fear, perhaps even awe (we note the fact that slave owners in Barbados made strenuous efforts to subvert the Christianisation of the slaves by Protestant missionaries. If the slaves were Christians, how much more difficult was it going to be to treat them as slaves. This shows that the the Barbados slave owners had to struggle not to see their slaves as human beings just like themselves. Today's capitalists have no such struggle. The idea of treating "human resources" as human beings simply would never occur to them - except as some kind of deviant behaviour.)

And nor is this the end of the story. In a certain respect, the slave was always in a superior position to today's wage-slave. It was only in the moment of slavery that the slave's labour was alienated from him. If he escaped, or if he had been born outside of slavery, then the possibility of not being deprived of his labour, i.e. of himself, was open to him. Before the system of commodified labour became universal, a man or woman could simply work as part of being. Their labour had no price or opportunity cost. But, once the system of commodified labour became universal, then there was no escape from wage-slavery at all. One was born a slave, and one died a slave. Even if one never actually did any work, one's work was always already accounted for as opportunity cost.

In this way, modern capitalist society is the most extensive slave society that has ever existed. Our work is taken out of the realm of democratic community, we are deprived of it, and it is privatised into the sphere of private profit.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,539

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
You're thinking of the banks:lol:
Private greed has brought this country to its knees - and the cretins what to get the privateers the last bit of the family silver we still have. Its just incredible. I can only think that the Irish have a terminal case of Stockholm Syndrome.
 

Antrim

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
340
To me certain things should remain in the governments hands, these are Education, Health, Water, Electricity and Public transport.

Every government in the world should own these for their people. These are the basic needs of the people. They should not be privatised.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
The IMF always get goverments to sell of state companies when they lend them money.
It's regrettable that the government is only selling these companies with a gun to its head. State control of gas and electricity inhibits free enterprise. At the time of the intro of the public sector pension levy, ESB workers were given a partnership pay rise. I remember that the Sunday Indo stated that these workers were essentially saying "Stuff the rest of ya or we'll knock the power off". IMF pressure will mean that David Begg and Jack O'Connor will get a bloody nose.
 

seabhac siulach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
412
According to the Four-Year Plan supplement in the Indo (Thursday 25 November) the Government will sell off some semi-states companies, including the ESB and Board Gais, to cover the cost of the interest on the $85 billion IMF/EU loan. It's about time that these companies were privatised. It'll bring about competition in the electricity and gas industries, which will be good for the consumer, and break the stranglehold of the trade union movement in these industries. I cannot understand why the European Commission, given that it is very fond of the free market, has not called for the privatisation of the semi-states.
There is already vigorous competition in the electricity sector, between a number of players, Energia, ESB, Airtricity and Bord Gais. In addition, each of these utility companies is moving into gas sales. In what manner would selling ESB, for example, boost competition? We are a small population, and of little interest to large European utility companies as a market. Privatising ESB and Bord Gais would be a transfer of wealth from the state into private hands, wealth built up by the state and state employees over decades. It would quite assuredly not bring in any new players to a crowded electricity market.
Of course, it could be that these semi-state companies are an affront to market ideology, i.e. profitable and well-run state companies.
Ah, sure, let's flog the family silver, why don't we?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
State control of gas and electricity inhibits free enterprise.
This is a very silly statement. Do you think there would be thousands of electricity companies operating perfect competition? Is that the way it works in Britain? No, a few companies exercise monopoly with state collusion, and make massive profits on the need of the people.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
To me certain things should remain in the governments hands, these are Education, Health, Water, Electricity and Public transport.

Every government in the world should own these for their people. These are the basic needs of the people. They should not be privatised.
The State is not the employer of the teachers of primary and second-level schools, except those under VEC administration, though it should be. Education and health should be treated the same way as law enforcement and defence.
 

Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,665
I wrote this on another thread:
In this way, modern capitalist society is the most extensive slave society that has ever existed. Our work is taken out of the realm of democratic community, we are deprived of it, and it is privatised into the sphere of private profit.
Cael, Dang, this is some excelent analysis.

I disagree with much of communism, but reading Marx, Hudson etc, the communists analysis is right up there with the very best, its the solutions proposed I take issue with. You appear to me as someone with a social consciense and a big heart, god's speed to you.
 
Last edited:

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Cael, Dang, this is some excelent analysis.

I disagree with much of communisms, but reading Marx, Hudson etc, the communists analysis is right up there with the very best, its the solutions proposed I take issue with. You appear to have a social consciense and a big heart, god's speed to you.
Go raibh maith agat a chara agus beannacht Dé ortsa chomh maith.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
There is already vigorous competition in the electricity sector, between a number of players, Energia, ESB, Airtricity and Bord Gais.
Having state-owned companies competing against each other is a sham. Privatisation of all of them would bring about real competition. The current economic climate means that the government should adopt Ronald Reagan's line of thinking i.e. reduce bureaucracy. We must be freed from the Scargill-style grip of the trade union movement.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Having state-owned companies competing against each other is a sham. Privatisation of all of them would bring about real competition. The current economic climate means that the government should adopt Ronald Reagan's line of thinking i.e. reduce bureaucracy. We must be freed from the Scargill-style grip of the trade union movement.
Bureaucracy experianced the biggest growth in its history under Reagan and Bush. Privatisation ends up creating far more bureaucracy, as you have to watch the thieving bástards every minute or they will destroy everything like a plague of locusts. You really want MORE Enrons and Anglo-Irish Banks?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top