Discussion on Living Income Guaranteed

Back to Latest topics

Nationalization

91088b79593a9b290f21a2d50d4e0672?s=45&d=identicon
Viktor Persson

When nationalization is mentioned here in Sweden, many often immediately associate this to communism, and leftist politics, and many without any assessment of the information, go into a resistance – how is it that I could present the concept of nationalization without having people immediately associate this with communism? I would like to be able to reach out to more people, and for them to see the effectiveness of this concept – but I don't know how to formulate myself so that they won't react!

Posted
A7405754aa8c4cc93d6c1e8b6ab9b988?s=45&d=identicon
Svemir Listes

We have the same problem in Croatia. Poblic property will be better name , maybe.

Posted
4daaba9354e2104d9519d1180cf7ba30?s=45&d=identicon
Eleonora Gozzini

The problem is worldwide Viktor, ideas of common good and community have been grouped together under fearful labels, we could reapproach the subject under 'citizen share' or 'wealth share' of resources, you will not be able to extend it to corporations though even when they are strategic for a country because historically the intervention of the State in the 'private property', which is what a corporation is perceived as, has always taken place by some kind of force and afterward condemned. I see this as a valuable point of discussion for our think tank, in my opinion it would be worth as well to take it the other way around, meaning to prove the indebit appropriation of public resources for the benefit of just a few, that way we amend the historical perception around the subject and we take it from there.

Posted
597108bb131d73abcfb6de0bf2d14c58?s=45&d=identicon
Rebecca Dalmas

I think that people have to begin to realize that a lack of participation in a system of profit allows self interest to come before the common good, and the consequence of this is that liability is left with the people who have allowed others to decide in a system where money has been allowed to accumulate into the hands of a few, who naturally will leave the waste as pollution and the cost of manufacture in the form of debt on the dependents that allowed this. I mean, if you could take all the money, the wealth, and leave the waste and the debt and get away with it, wouldn't you do this?
We all have to realize that we are all responsible for what happens with the resources on earth, and that how they are used and replenished and sustained effects everyone and the quality of our lives. We have to, as humans, stand and choose to create a form of life that is dignified for ourselves and everyone.
Expropriation of resources to fund a living wage for all, where all participate in how the resources are used in sustainable ways, can only benefit everyone and yet, still allow innovation. And that innovation can be voted upon by everyone, to realize the most efficient use, with the input of insight from all angles ensuring that best practices are the outcome.

Posted
9aaabca2945c968024d4fccf6a55ff9b?s=45&d=identicon
Christopher Wells

Instead of saying "nationalization" you should say "privatization".

People are greedy that's why lol :-p

Posted
E3e733ce654a9058566d3a2fd6ae0f9a?s=45&d=identicon
Maite Zamora Moreno

Cool Viktor, I agree with Ele in just using different words. The 'formula' of 'nationalization' suggested in the LIG proposal is different to what is usually understood under the term, so I wouldn't even use the word. Rather explain the principle of making the citizens shareholders of 'national resource companies' and 'human rights companies' and to have the profits from these companies be used to fund a Living Income.

Posted
330d4ceb813820721924861b7adb06f3?s=45&d=identicon
Niklas Nydahl
Posted