Marxism and State Ownership

The verb to nationalize, coined during the French Revolution, meant “to return to the nation” the properties of various “estates,” namely those of the clergy and nobles. From the middle of the nineteenth century on, its derivative, nationalization, acquired various extensions, connotations, and interpretations. One such extension referred to bringing under “the control of the nation” banks and railroads (even foreign capital holdings) that were supposed to be “renationalized” for the purpose. Another extension of the term referred to the “socialization” (or nationalization) of the means of production and to the centralization of all production activities in the hands of the state.

In order to understand the rationale and scope of nationalizations carried out by socialist and/or communist parties, one must first explore the meanings assigned by the founders of Marxian socialism to private property and to the state. Also, one must attempt to understand the ways in which these parties – which often, though not always, claimed allegiance to the same Marxian theories – have come to diverge in their interpretation of Marxism or how they have come to combine Marxian ideas with different – and at time flatly opposed (or, contradictory) – practical considerations. To start with, let me note that in the Communist Manifesto(1848) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels asserted that communist theory “may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”