diff between privatization and public owned?

Question

communists often accuse capitalism of being corrupt and stealing and blah blah, but what makes them think that a gov that controls everything cant be corrupt? what makes you think an even more powerful gov will less corrupt and abusive of its powers despite it having more power? they hate rich people without thinking that maybe those rich people used to be poor. they also think that only the rich steal. how large would the black market be under communism...how is the trade of tax-less products going to improve the economy? oh ya, the police will break the door down and take your HD-tv, take an axe, and break into the number of people on your block, and divide it evenly, no?

Answer 1

Private ownership means the company (utility, system) is owned by its shareholders. So in the case of the UK, the water supplies, electricity supplies, gas supplies, train companies and the company that builds and maintains the tracks are owned by a group of shareholders and not by the public.

Public ownership means the public owns the company (utility, system) and it is funded by the government through taxation.

Personally, I don't believe in private ownership of essential utilities, because water, gas and electricity should be owned by the public and funded by the public through taxation. That way, the public has a say in how these "public works" are operated, and revenues go into improving the systems as opposed to going into the pockets of shareholders first, and into investment only if there is anything left over (which there usually isn't). Ditto "public transportation". Don't you find it contradictory when "public works" and "public transportation" are owned by a few private individuals?

Answer 2

it's important to understand that communism was developed in opposition to pre-industrial feudalism and aristocracies. at that time most land was owned by very small groups, who also controlled the govts. as cottage industries developed, they were an offshoot of the same feudal system. if you weren't born into this world as a member of a landowning family, then you were born onto somebody else's property. you needed to be a servant of such a family to survive, or else you had to struggle mightily. once landlords began creating small businesses, the servants worked at the businesses for little compensation. much like slavery in many parts of europe. communists could foresee the day when all people worked for businesses and would be enslaved to them without recourse. they thought it best that the state owns both land and industry, that workers could vote out their 'bosses' and that the bosses would be chosen by the state. most people would earn appr. the same amount of money, pay no taxes (everything being fee based) and be gauranteed employment. elections were considered dangerous since the people couldn't really 'know' a candidate. he could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. the state chose the politicians from within the party. the people would vote, but only the one candidates name was on the ballot. so people just voted 'yes or no'. career service within the communist party, as well as the ability of workers to vote out their bosses, were considered the best available safegaurds against corruption. as capitalism evolved in the early half of the century, communists really weren't paying much attn to it. it was assumed to be the same old aristocratic feudalist system. it wasn't until the last 30 or 40 years that modern western capitalism (with its mix of socialism)had proven itself as the better system so far. labor laws and a strong minimum wage are the mechanisms that keep capitalism better than communism. in western europe and australia, the minimum wage is more than double the u.s. minimum wage. politically, communists still don't believe in democracy, but only because power has corrupted them and they don't want to leave office! as for the hd-tv, communism says that the state owns the manufacturing company, owns the idea, and those people who will own one are the people who save enough money and choose to buy one. however, there is no incentive for the workers to bust their butts building enough hd-tv's to meet the demand, so lots of people would have to wait a very long time to buy one.