Should fossil fuels be nationalized?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

To clarify: Hypothetically, the first step of this would be the seizure all fossil fuel assets and oilfields for a publicly-owned corporation. It could stay like this, or, as some of us (myself included) may prefer, be devolved to worker control.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, but the idea of free or $0.99 per gallon gas does sound tempting.

[TNF]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yes, and then phased out as quickly as possible.

[muon2]

Fossil fuels are in a sense already the property of the state. In most states mineral rights require a purchase agreement, generally through a paid permit, to extract the minerals. Then there is a severance tax placed on the volume of minerals removed from the state, essentially paying the public for their minerals as they are taken. In a sense the state is contracting the work of removing the fossil fuels.

Perhaps what you are suggesting is that you would like the extraction company to be a public entity. Consider that states own roadways but the department of transportation contracts out the work to build and resurface the roadways. Should private road builders with union workers be abolished and the roads built only by the state directly?

[AggregateDemand]

Yes, and then phased out as quickly as possible.

Sure. If the government is sitting on 14-digits worth of free money, they are going to phase it out. Probably the best argument against nationalization.

[Goldwater]

Of course not.

[Simfan34]

Only after they nationalise my trousers and institute knee-leg co-determination.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't see why not.

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course not.

[Redalgo]

Not in the United States, though it is an attractive possibility in many LDCs. Corruption is the bane of anything useful getting done in the way of human development using the revenues generated by fossil fuels (or in the form of taxes, for that matter) so in practice I suppose it is usually an iffy proposition.

In the U.S. what would make more sense is to nationalize the nuclear sector and incrementally drive their conventional counterparts into the ground - in particular undermining the importance of coal for baseload electrical output. At some point it might make sense to transfer control of the nuclear stations to co-ops.

[SWE]

Yes

[courts]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

[Deus Naturae]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

[Peter the Lefty]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

Uh, they'd be no more likely to do that than the bosses who currently run it.  In fact, probably less likely.

[TNF]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

Why would they do that? There's no need to make a profit in a non-profit industry.

[Deus Naturae]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

Uh, they'd be no more likely to do that than the bosses who currently run it.  In fact, probably less likely.

No, if they had a monopoly on the industry, as TNF and Ghost_White are proposing, they would be far more likely to do so than companies that have to compete with others to offer lower rates. There's a reason energy companies don't just increase rates by 500% right now. Hint: They'd all be perfectly happy to jack up rates if one company had a monopoly on the entire industry.

[Deus Naturae]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

Why would they do that? There's no need to make a profit in a non-profit industry.

Who's to say that the workers wouldn't run it as a for-profit? How else will they get payed?

[TNF]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

Why would they do that? There's no need to make a profit in a non-profit industry.

Who's to say that the workers wouldn't run it as a for-profit? How else will they get payed?

Profit is the amount of money produced in excess of what workers need to sustain themselves. If this proposed entity is non-profit, that means the workers would charge only what it costs them to produce the energy and pay themselves for what it is they work. Without bosses, there's no incentive to force anyone to work extra to generate surplus value (that is, profit), and so everyone gets the monetary value of what it is they produce.

[Deus Naturae]

All energy should be nationalized and directed by the workers of that sector.

And if those workers decide to massively jack up rates?

Why would they do that? There's no need to make a profit in a non-profit industry.

Who's to say that the workers wouldn't run it as a for-profit? How else will they get payed?

Profit is the amount of money produced in excess of what workers need to sustain themselves. If this proposed entity is non-profit, that means the workers would charge only what it costs them to produce the energy and pay themselves for what it is they work. Without bosses, there's no incentive to force anyone to work extra to generate surplus value (that is, profit), and so everyone gets the monetary value of what it is they produce.

And if workers aren't content with simply making enough to sustain themselves?

[TNF]

While that possibility would certainly exist in a capitalist market economy, there's no reason to think it would if said cooperative had a monopoly and was specifically denied the power to do so by whatever rules govern its operation. Workers who own the industry that they work at also interact on a daily basis with people who pay for the service that they provide; there would be almost no incentive for them to break the balls of the people who pay their wages directly (and whom they know, not who they deal with through bureaucracies like modern corporations owned by absentee owners hundreds of thousands of miles away) in order to generate more for themselves. Such an activity would be wholly antisocial and I think that the workers would have more common sense not to send their friends and family into the poor house in order to give themselves an extra buck.

The capitalist has no such incentive, because impoverishing  more people means more money for them and more capacity to expand production. And more often than not, the capitalist doesn't see the impoverishment his actions cause. He can sleep soundly at night as whole cities go under as he moves a plant to China or Mexico. And of course, more poor people means more potential employees that will work for next to nothing, allowing the capitalist to lower wages and cut costs further.

[Deus Naturae]

While that possibility would certainly exist in a capitalist market economy, there's no reason to think it would if said cooperative had a monopoly and was specifically denied the power to do so by whatever rules govern its operation.

Ah, so the government would set the rules the cooperative had to follow?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So rates would be set by each local subdivision of the cooperative? Who would manage the finances of the cooperative at the national level?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, because fossil fuels (as an energy source) will be replaced in the near future with decentralised, renewable forms of energy. We don't need to prop up a dinosaur industry under public hands, it just gives false hope to workers.

(I'm only talking about fossil fuels for energy here, not coking coal; which we will probably need for quite some time. Those should be ideally co-operatised.)

[Sol]

Most certainly, preferably to hasten their abolition in favor of less evil methods of power.

[muon2]

I haven't seen anyone yet respond to the fact that the fossil fuels already are the property of the state. The state issues a permit (for a fee) to a company to recover the minerals then charges a severance tax based on the value of minerals extracted.