a very short “summary” of two opposing views. but why is this even up for debate and where is the actually socialist perspective here- that’s government ownership not workers’ ownership-
Yes. In practice, socialist governments have seized the means of production and directed the economy through central planning. “The government owning part of Intel is, on some level, socialism. It’s at least socialism-ish!” Robby Soave writes for The Hill.
No. The United States has a long history of getting involved in company ownership for the purpose of staying competitive with rival nations. “When America faced an international communist threat sponsored by Moscow, conservatives knew absolute devotion to free markets was self-defeating,” Daniel McCarthy writes for The Daily Signal.
Only if words no longer have meaning, or one is speaking without a wit in one’s head, or one is speaking with intent to deceive.
There are many good reasons why a nation might seek ownership of a strategic resource. There are also many bad reasons, and there are corrupt reasons. None of which relate greatly to the efficacy of any given purchase, and all of which are wholly separate as to the economic system at play.