[wesselbindt]

One thing that bothers me about the incremental approach is that we seem to be at a local minimum[footnote]. It feels like any small amount of ownership of the means of production we transfer to the workers will be clawed back into the hands of the owning class, because they have the means to do the clawing back, and we do not. There's a couple examples I know of in this regard, namely Allende in Chile, the PKI in Indonesia, and of course the nationalization of oil in various middle eastern countries in the past century (Iran, for example).

For a more western example, look at Corbyn's loss in the 2019 UK elections. Part of his platform was actually a plan to get closer to workplace democracy, by offering collectives of employees a first option when a company gets sold (or something to that effect). Exactly the kind of incremental step I imagine you're talking about. I cannot help but think his loss was inevitable due to who owns the media (the owning class).

It seems to me that any small step we take will be fruitless if there's this big behemoth looming in the background.

I appreciate you putting your thoughts to paper. More than my one line question deserved.

[footnote] Actually local minimum implies that things aren't getting worse, while they are. E.g. neoliberal European governments are systematically underfunding all sorts of public institutions, which will eventually lead to them being privatized, because the free market would do a much better job than the government, which has been making a mess of it for years. Starving the beast has us barreling towards a minimum, but we're not there yet.

[AnimalMuppet]

> ... and of course the nationalization of oil in various middle eastern countries in the past century (Iran, for example).

I do not know for certain, but I strongly suspect that Iran's oil industry wasn't owned (even incrementally) by the workers. Its nationalization was not a claw back by the owning class, but a claw back from the owning class (to the government, which may be essentially the same thing).

[wesselbindt]

You suspect wrong. At the time, Iran had a democratically elected government. Nationalizing their oil did actually take away capital from private interests and put it under democratic control. The west made quick work of their democracy after that, the effects of which we can still feel today.

[AnimalMuppet]

The nation owning the means of production is not the same as the workers owning the means of production. (I will admit that in a democracy it may be closer to worker ownership. Or maybe not, depending on how well the elite have managed to control the government.)

[wesselbindt]

Yes it is. Rather than being beholden to shareholders who seek profit, the company becomes beholden to voters (which is mostly comprised of the proletariat), and hence steers toward societal goods rather than maximizing profit. It's why public health care is preferable to private.

Is it perfect and pure ownership of capital by the workers? No. But it most definitely is a step in that direction, and it was taken back by force almost immediately. The reason I bring it up is as a historical example of the incremental approach not working.

[lazide]

You’re all missing the point.

Iran’s oil company was mostly owned by foreign interests (eventually just the British Gov’t) and the Shah (king). [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company]

It was never meaningfully privately owned while it was producing, and the British (and Russians!) eventually just forced a coup - before being overthrown by a democratic government, which was then overthrown by the Shah (with the help of the CIA), which was then overthrown by the Ayatollahs in turn.

Because foreign interests were taking almost all the profits and abusing their position.

At no point, including today, were the common people of Iran meaningfully in control of the oil or had anything resembling a meaningful ownership stake.

Though there is significant socialized benefits under most modern regimes, where oil and energy costs are dramatically subsidized, and revenues get pushed into the economy in various make work type schemes.

This is similar to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. though with varying flavors of current socio/religious ruling framework.

It’s essentially buying population compliance through bribes of cheap energy and easy jobs, and it’s not just the Middle East that does it. The vast majority of oil producing nations do it.

Though notably, Russia is pretty bad at actually delivering to the population, despite being a major exporter.

Also Notably? That oil company became what is now known as British Petroleum, or BP.

[wesselbindt]

Your comment seems to be predicated on a falsehood, namely that the Iranian oil industry was not meaningfully privately owned. I hate to play wikipedia here, but see the first line in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Irani...

[lazide]

Read my Wikipedia link. It was owned by Britain and the Shah - who was defacto ruler of Iran. Everyone else had been pushed out at that point.

Which the article you linked to doesn’t dispute. It also provides no examples of any other private owners, interestingly.

Can you provide any?

The talking point of ‘theft! Theft!’ was one justification the CIA used to overthrow the democracy. Which hey, usually most nationalizations are. And this one basically was.

But in context, it was kicking out abusive control. Which, for anyone familiar with abusers, is the worst thing someone can do. And so, the expected outcome occurred.

Then, when it got bad again, the Ayatollahs came in and counter-reacted. But have managed to keep control, albeit with some messy incidents.

And everyone has been angry since, with Iran working to sabotage US and British interests, and US and British interests working to sabotage the Iranians.