(A) Necessaries for Life: Energy (Fuel)

Nationalizing Energy: I had an idea once of putting control of energy and power in the hands of the state paid for by our taxes.  This takes energy control out of the hands o f the private sector, allowing am industry controlled by politicians (or and association of technicians) and maintained by workers (plants).  I thought this would make the people afford cheaper energy and would help business develop and spur on the economy.

But the ideal never works out as planned, and material limitations and reality must always be kept in mind.  I don't know if Nationalized Energy would work or not.  Maybe the Sate would be more responsive to the masses than the capitalists (I think we can see this evident in any welfare state).  Without their capital, energy capitalists (fucking NYSEG) will not be able to lobby congress or the government in whole.  That just leaves the Automobile industry.  Sounds like Marxist-Reformism, yet keep in mind that lobbyists would never allow for such a policy to enter into discussion in the first place.

For the sake of discussion, let's just imagine that some decent radical politicians are elected (ha!) and manage to stay radical and decent politicians (HA! ha!).  One thing that could happen is that the energy control is shared between the State, an association of technicians, and the cities and regions.  Funded by the State by its tax revenue, the technicians negotiate and study the city and regions to create the energy options/potential as well as the demands/requests needed to be reached.  This would allow for the power plants to be transformed from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, making pleas to the city from its populace more potent, realizing indirect democracy.

Or, the State will just be in control without the sovereignty of the city or association of technicians.  Here the city sends its complaints directly to the State and the State may or may not send someone who may or may not fulfill the city's request.  This second case mimics the situation of the Soviet Union.  In this case the people's needs are not met by red tae and the heartlessness of the State.  So it is an issue of caring for it in the birthing process, of whether it becomes bottom-up or top-down (bottom-up being the preferable option).

There is also  third case without the State as an intermediary.  In the existing conditions there could be a case of one or three technicians who have a group of volunteers devoted and willing to the cause who develop the renewable energy infrastructure (which would be maintained and owned collectively by the community)of the region/community.  Or the other case of post-Revolution where there becomes an association of technicians responsive to the Communes/collectives of the federation/Network.  Obviously as an anarchist I fully support and wish for the latter of the three, but I do endorse the Welfare State option 1 creation.

p.s. I'll just describe that the post-Revolution energy systems will be owned by the Commune and not necessarily by the technicians that created them.  The technicians will be employed by the Commune/collective and the technicians may be a part of the Commune/collective, but the ownership will be in the Commune's, which will mean it is owned by the entire community, or group of communities.