TO NATIONALISE

Or not to nationalise?

I do have some sympathies with land nationalisation but only really so far as it may allieviate homelessness and would eliminate parasitic landlords, especially those dependent on housing benefit, but there are three glaring errors: 1. No matter how democratic the state is, the state is still the landlord so basically instead or working or becoming homeless, people would have to obey or become homeless.

2.In a market economy, so long as it is based on free capital, there would be pressure from capital (threat of capital flight etc) for discounts on state land for economic as opposed to practical purposes. What this means is that a)land for factories etc would be cheaper than land for housing and b)this would again benefit business-types as they could claim their home is a business and get cheaper rents than a worker for the same property

3.Housing benefit IS a form of Nationalisation, but like all state interventions its main effect is to benefit those who already benefit from Capitalism, the middle-classes, or, more accurately, it places elements of the middle classes who would not necessarily be able to obtain decent paid work otherwise on the side of the state (i.e. police, army,landlords) and against elements of the proletariat who are still unable to find decent paid work.

I'll put 3 another way: imagine if HB was abolished. A significant minority (mostly pensioners and families on low wages) of rented households are currently on HB (I'd imagine). If they were all suddenly unable to pay their rent (because, in the case of working families, the state previously subsidised their wages) it would be practically impossible to evict every household without massive overspending on the police and prisons and massive public outcry so they would basically get off without paying rent and their landlords or housing associations would suffer.