0490f719b2866bf020b5c6b011f11a39f0442779b312dd6b6a


The reason why I support the nationalization is :
1. Ensuring the economy and the corporations are serving the common good instead of maximization of profit
2. Sovereignty. Certain sectors simply need to be under the control of the gov. 
3. Self-Sufficiency, you need strict control over your economy to engineer it into being as self sufficient as it possibly can. The more self-sufficient, the more autonomous, thus the more sovereign. This counts for both the individual and the Nation. Even if there are some economic problems with the notion of autarky, I put sovereignty above the GDP. I don't believe in the internationalist liberal idea of cooperation between each nation, so each nation maximizes what they do best and depends on others for what they do worse, independently of the needs of the nation. I think a nation should try as much as it possibly can to serve the demands of its people using its own land, mainly but not strictly for questions of sovereignty.
4. The liberal/libertarian argument that "public companies" are inherently worse than private ones can't be proven empirically nor rationally.  I think if we analyse it through science and empirism, we can reach the conclusion public ones are more probable of being run well than private ones. Private companies very often go bankrupt, way more often than public ones stop being lucrative. You have amazing examples of public corporations giving very good profit to the State and the Nation.
Countries ruled by intelligent races or ethnicities often produce both well run private companies but also public companies. Countries ruled by less-developed races dont. The question is the West has been controlled by the US and the UK which are inherently capitalist economically, so you have good examples of capitalist economies. And, more often than not, capitalists use the argument of "hey, look, this brown country tried socialism or corporatism and it did not work, thus muh free market capitalism better". But look at Hitler's Germany, Soviet Union, China, Fascist Italy etc.. they are/were run well. Even certain less inteligent nations under a socialist or heavily interventionist economy made the lifes of their own populations better, like Gaddafi's Libya.
Some libertarians also argue private companies are more probable of being well run than public ones because the owners have an interest on it being well run and more productive so they can maximize profit.
The question is, this is true for small business. But in big business today, we observe owners that are more and more detached from the actual workplace, thus they have no idea what is going on in their companies and all of the micromanagement and most of the macromanagement of the company  is made by employed people, who don't have this actual real interest in maximizing profit, simply have the interest in having a better reputation within the company.
This incentive of the employed who macro or micro manage the company is also present in public ones. And the incentive of maximizing profit that is the basis of one of the capitalist arguments is only present on small-medium businesses, not big corporations.
And I only support nationalizing or submitting big or stratetic corporations . Small business will be fully private and free. 
The poor old man will be the bourgeoisie under the Gonçalist State, totally ruled over by the Aristocratic Political Class.

출처: 
https://x.com/tradmonarchist/status/1810491353471832129?s=46