Almost two centuries ago, we communists realized that the modern State is merely a “committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” — that is, the whole class of bosses and owners. This remains true today. The State grows out of the capitalist economy, has its roots in it; its economic power relies on the revenues generated by capitalist accumulation. It depends, therefore, upon the dirty secret of all capitalist production: exploitation of the working class.

With Britain in the midst of a dramatic flare-up of the class struggle, workers in industries like rail are being encouraged to look towards a single, miraculous cure for all of their troubles. This cure, peddled by the Labour Party, union leaderships and self-proclaimed socialist organizations alike, is nationalization — the takeover of a given industry by the State. Even labour formations with a reputation for radicalism have uncritically accepted the notion that, by making the State their boss, workers can improve their economic position. For example, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, vilified as an extreme and unreasonable organization for its role in the ongoing rail strikes, demanded in 2021 that “the Government make urgent moves to bring the entire rail network into public ownership”.

The push for nationalization of industry has a long history in Britain, going back to the formation of the Labour Party itself. But far from being a radical measure that will lift workers out of their current misery, nationalization is fool’s gold – an illusion that will only replace one exploiter with another. In place of a particular capitalist, workers would be exploited by the ideal collective capitalist, the State. It’s for this reason that British communists, like Sylvia Pankhurst, have fought against nationalization.

When the State intervenes in the economy, it does so to ensure optimal economic growth, thus developing its own power, as well as that of the capitalist class. In order to do this, it must protect certain general conditions for capitalist production. These include the existence of a working class fit and docile enough for exploitation — a requirement that explains State-funded healthcare programs, for example, and the maintenance of a public transport network capable of handling the ceaseless traffic in people, goods and services engendered by capitalism. Just like the individual capitalist, the State has an interest in extracting as much surplus as possible from the workers’ labor, as cheaply as possible. After all, projects which fail to pay for themselves impose a tax burden on the national economy which, if sufficiently heavy, could itself damage the capital accumulation upon which the State is based. Just like the individual capitalist, the State relates to the worker as a mere business expense — it purchases his or her labor-power at the going price and squeezes as much living labor as it can out of them. State-funded jobs do not exist for the sake of workers, but for the sake of the State and its purposes — purposes which, like that of the capitalist class, are diametrically opposed to the interests of workers.

There is thus no reason to believe that nationalization would automatically benefit workers. They would simply exchange one boss for another, remaining subordinate to the overall purpose of capital accumulation, continuing to function only as a cost factor to be minimized wherever possible. The ruling class and its State use nationalization for their own ends and are just as quick to toss it away when it no longer benefits them!

For confirmation of this, we need only look at the plight of workers employed by the National Health Service, Britain’s State-funded healthcare provider. Here — so far from enjoying the cornucopia of delights promised by the advocates of nationalization — nurses, junior doctors, ambulance staff and other medical personnel have been waging a desperate battle against real-terms wage cuts and worsening conditions of work. With the hollow label of “key workers” still ringing in their ears, these highly trained professionals must contend with sharply declining living standards as well as staff and equipment shortages. Teachers, likewise, have been forced out on strike in order to obtain pay rises commensurate with inflation from the government. These State employees, like staff employed by Britain’s private train operating companies (TOCs), have learned that the only surefire way of improving their lot is to come together as workers in defense of their common interests.

The lesson here is clear: nationalization is not a magic bullet for the labor movement. It does not guarantee any improvement in workers’ living or working conditions, nor does it promise to forestall reductions in staffing and equipment levels. Indeed, in sectors like rail, the government is actively colluding with employers to lay off workers and promote cost-efficiency (read: greater exploitation, and therefore greater capital returns). Nationalization seeks to solve the problems labour presents the State, and the capitalist class as a whole, by removing the living embodiment of capitalist social relations — the capitalist — without addressing the fundamental cause of the exploitation of workers: the very same social relations!

It is of no use to argue that nationalization would be advantageous if implemented by a Labour government, as opposed to a Conservative one. The bourgeois State will always depend for its power upon the capitalist economy — that is, on the exploitation of workers. It will always treat workers as a cost-factor, one which must be minimized wherever possible. It will always leave workers in the lurch when it comes to working conditions, so long as the job can be done more cheaply. Generations of workers in healthcare, teaching and many other sectors can testify to this. Rather than an attack on private property, nationalization is a reinforcement of it: the State acts to preserve the capitalist economy, to shore up areas of weakness, to ensure the best possible conditions for the exploitation of labor.

Workers cannot expect salvation from the form of political organization of their rulers. They can only grasp it with their own hands. Organized in their class formations, in their unions and their political party, they must strive towards that ‘ever-expanding union’ which constitutes the “fruit” of all their struggles. They must come together as a class, under the leadership of the communist party, to smash the bourgeois State and — with the new political power they will construct — proceed to the abolition of private property itself, since property relations are nothing more than the legal expression of relations of production (Grundrisse).
As Engels said, in his 1891 letter to Max Oppenheim:

“Therein precisely lies the rub; for, so long as the propertied classes remain at the helm, nationalization never abolishes exploitation but merely changes its form — in the French, American or Swiss republics no less than in monarchist Central, and despotic Eastern, Europe”.