I don’t think government-owned grocery stores, housing and telcos are a good response, not that I have any objection to so-called government intervention, but because they don’t put ownership of these essential public services into the hands of the people. It’s just far too easy for a non-socialist government to take power and undercut or sell off the public option, making service worse and increasing costs on everyone. Avi Lewis’s proposal on grocery stores tells me he hasn’t thought this through, unfortunately.

Rather, what we need is to decentralize and put these essential services directly into the hands of the people who use them and depend on them. The role government intervention should play is to ensure laws favourable to the development of co-ops (themselves with good union jobs) are supported, and funding put in place to overcome the barriers posed by competing against oligarchies or monopolies. Though Lewis mentions the word ‘cooperative’ I don’t really see any plan specific to them, so the proposal amounts to significant public spending to develop services that will just be handed over to large corporations with the next change of government.

There are some cases where the difference between private sector and public ownership is so great it’s basically impossible for a government to privatize – public health care insurance is the primary example of this. Even so, even in the face of the enormous difference in value of the two systems, we *still* face an ongoing campaign to privatize whenever a conservative government is in power, and must resist the bit-by-bit chipping away of the system.

And that’s for cases where the difference is huge. In most cases, the difference isn’t huge. Public housing (or social housing, or council housing) often causes as many problems as it solves. Food security programs are a small improvement over existing food banks. Nationalizing the financial system is far more likely to cause chaos than genuine reform. And any law establishing these things – or establishing union protections, limits to foreign investments, etc., can be overturned by successive governments. What law gives, law can take away.

If we want to address the housing crisis, we have to build housing that people own (either personal homes or co-ops) so future governments can’t sell them off. If we want to solve the food crisis, we have to make people self-sufficient in food, so government can’t just allow monopoly practices. If we want progressive financial institutions, we have to develop and support a broader financial cooperative network. If we want to support worker rights, then workers must own their own enterprises. Etc.

If the government owns it, it’s vulnerable. If the people own it, it’s safe. Well, at least, a lot safer.

21st century socialism is about much more than ownership of the means of production. It’s about *distributed* and *decentralized* ownership of the means of production. A proper leader understands this, and is willing to place enough trust in the people to allow them to take the reins. If the leader doesn’t trust the people, then they’re not working for the people.