* provided you have decently well functioning public service, and it's not a country with high levels of corruption.
I hold the belief that things being equal there is almost no situation in which privatisation of public services has ever been a positive for the average person.
However, I'm keen to hear arguments, examples or studies where privatisation has gone well [1], and has been a net positive to society, and could not have been performed by the government.
I don't believe there are such examples, and I believe (with too many real world examples to list) that privatisation always leads to enshittification and budget blow outs eventually because private companies exist to maximise profits.
This community (!aussocialism@aussie.zone) does not delete comments that disagree with socialism, so you're very much encouraged to share your views respectfully.
[1] for countries that have some level of democracy at that point in history i.e. I'm not really interested in the example of China becoming capitalist, 1. because Chinese "socialism" was never control of society by the workers, and was (and still is) a top-down hierarchical dictatorship - which had a ruling class determined by party position, and now also determined by wealth. No wonder that things were being run so poorly before they decided to be capitalist. Dictatorships don't usually breed very good conditions for sensible management. 2. They still have most core government services being administered by government departments.
Cross-posted to AustralianPolitics: https://aussie.zone/post/33395217
4 Comments
notgold@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 75d
I agree that services are almost always better run by the government when that government is a functioning democracy.
The only example I can think of is newspaper/pharmacy deliveries to homes. Local businesses would have kids on bikes riding out to homes getting papers and drugs out to those that didn't want to our couldn't get there easily. When things like this are government run they tend to be difficult to sign up for and then overkill; kid on a bike versus man in truck. Now I know this could be seen as taking advantage of children but it was one of the few ways kids could make a few dollars and get to know your local community. I'd much prefer this as someones first job.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 75d
Funnily enough, this was my first job lol
I personally believe there's no reason it couldn't be run well by the government. And there's no reason why the government couldn't hire 14-year 9-month year old children for things. If the private market can, why not the government? There's also way more scrutiny on the government, meaning exploitation of underage workers is less likely (it's absolutely rife in small businesses, children typically don't know their rights).
The only reason, in my view, government-run things are bloated and inefficient, is because they're run too top down.
The leadership of government departments really should be elected by the workers. Who would still be beholden to parliament like they already are.
There are so many absolutely clueless department CEOs that cause swathes of public servants to change to a different jobs due to mismanagement, and we all pay for that in delays and cost blowouts.
Honestly, so much inefficiency, public and private, comes from the fact we don't have democracy in the workplace and the people in charge aren't competent.
The success of coops around the world really shows this.
notgold@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 75d
I agree with the co-ops.
The government do paper deliveries but they are just from local councils. Problem is the have to be agnostic and not pick sides. Most of us prefer to read the echo chamber we align with. They could probably do it with a sports newspaper though 😂🤣😅
MisterFrog@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 73d
Ah, I was referring to the pharmacy deliveries haha