The reason why I’m posting on NoStupidQuestions a bit often is because I got banned from Lemmy.ml and such because I was being a bit too “revisionist”. If anything I’ve said may be revisionist, I apologize. I should really study and read theory, shouldn’t I?
So first off anyone who says boring shit like calling you a “revisionist” or “read theory” is a moron unable to defend their position, they’re treating socialist theory like a cultish religion.
Or to put it another way MLs are dumb, ignore them.
Generally I think if there are state owned assets, work on them should generally be contracted out to cooperatives, as that puts workers truly in control (as opposed to being cogs in the machine) and allows workers to find a different cooperative to work at, but I don’t think there is any one “correct” answer.
Something like that
One point of tension is that under a system where you still need to get paid to get things needed to survive/enjoy life, any organization outside of the state will be incentized to only do what they have to do and have the workers have more freetime (either for leisure or other work), whereas salaried state employees would use that time for improvements.
My gut tells me this is a trade-off worth making but it might not be, perhaps it makes more sense to have state monopolies, maintained by the state as then additional capacity gets put towards improvements.
I’ve just not seen state enterprises turnout that well, wether it’s the NHS or the Soviet economy outside of wartime, I don’t agree with the capitalist critique that workers have no incentive to perform well at their jobs, because the USSR/NHS didn’t/doesn’t have a flat pay structure, so my best theory is the alienation of people from their labor is a huge factor. And this is also supported by my personal experiences as well as those of people I know who work in the NHS.
TL;DR it’s a good question that hopefully one day we will have the opportunity to figure out.