The fact that the DoD hasn't seized control of Starlink as a national security asset is insane. They could even pay him a fair market price for the company and keep all the employees on. Just appoint government personnel at the highest levels to ensure it stays online.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's not a good solution either. The government seizing assets from private citizens isn't cool. That's oppressive. But the government should have built that network with our tax dollars, not given our tax dollars to a private citizen to build and keep all the profits from. I'm not saying he should retain control, but I am saying he should have never been given control.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The government seizing assets from private citizens isn’t cool.

It’s very good and cool.

[–] Saurok@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It would be very good and cool under a socialist state, but not in the US currently and I'll explain my reasoning. In the US, nationalization represents the transfer of an enterprise from a single capitalist firm to the capitalist class as a whole via the state. Nationalization can bring benefits to both the working and capitalist classes, but ultimately the workers are still being exploited by the state for private profits instead of social ends. When an enterprise is nationalized by a capitalist state, the former owners are usually generously compensated with state bonds bearing a fixed rate of interest; this enables them to continue to exploit the workers involved at a rate of profit now guaranteed by the state. The class struggle continues, but but it is now necessary for the workers to struggle not against a single private management but against the capitalist state in its entirety. This is one of the reasons why Mussolini and Hitler heaped praise on FDR for his New Deal policies. They did a lot of good for people during the depression, but they also were market interventionist in a way that put a lot of corporate control in the hands of the capitalist state.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I won’t nitpick and just say that you’re mostly right. Nationalization within the imperial core has only ever provided small, temporary relief for a labor aristocracy that benefits from imperial super-profits.

Nationalizations outside of the imperial core is a move toward independence from the imperialist states, so it’s much more significant. So significant that the imperial core may try for regime change to claw those resources back.

[–] Saurok@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Yes, 100% agree. Thanks for the additional insight.