Post WW2 USA: Is it possible for state capitalism to be more widely acceptable?

Post WW2 USA: Is it possible for state capitalism to be more widely acceptable?

Or is the idea of state intervention too anathema to the US?

I am trying to see if an ATL where SOEs, and state-owned corporations become much more common and acceptable to the US economy.
 
Eternally high oil prices(as in they literally never go down) leads to calls for nationalization of the oil industry, to somehow mitigate the agony.

(Caveat, even as a complete amateur, I know enough about oil prices to know that they never stay on one end of the spectrum, despite the various doomsday predictions.)
 
Outside of military and aerospace?
To be frank, in my hypothetical ATL, I see state-capitalism strongest in military manufacturing, steel, oil and gas , and aerospace manufacturing.

I think in OTL, the US military actually had a good deal of in-house manufacturing in its "Arsenal". system. But it got privatised after Ww2
 
To be frank, in my hypothetical ATL, I see state-capitalism strongest in military manufacturing, steel, oil and gas , and aerospace manufacturing.

I think in OTL, the US military actually had a good deal of in-house manufacturing in its "Arsenal". system. But it got privatised after Ww2
Rock Island Arsenal was set to build prototypes, but not mass or even limited production. They made under 100 AFVs from 1939 to 1945.
Springfield, they were on the other end of that scale, able to mass produce rifles, but little else.
Watervliet, they were in-between, for making Arty, and were able to scale up production.
In November, 1943, they made more tubes in that month, than their total WWI production.

Edit: WWI workers, 5126 employed.
During the Depression, 322
December, 1942, 9370, 31% Women.
 
Last edited:
So I think we can agree that there is in fact very little resistance to state capitalism *which results in private profits* in *certain sectors*: chiefly where the government is the consumer; or, where the government is effectively the consumer of last resort due to lack of profitability and regulation implying a latent political working class demand. Astronauts and amtrack.

for the former push the supply chain back into steel when cars go plastic.
for the latter proletarianise health care under 2nd new deal wildcat strikes. (Health won’t be as profitable as a rent on years of potential life if the market is cut off before commodity formation via pharmaceutical)
 
During the Korean War Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry after workers threatened to strike for higher wages. Truman moved to nationalize them (they would keep existing management but be directed by the feds) to keep them running. The workers supported this move but the steel companies sued to stop him. This led to Youngstown v Sawyer, which for the purposes of this thread made it so the POTUS/executive cannot seize private property without explicit authorization from congress.

Avoid/change this decision and you might get an America more familiar with state owned or directed industries. The downside being the Executive branch now has a very powerful tool if it can just unilaterally nationalize an industry like that.
 
Last edited:
- What about the internet and telecommunication companies? Perhaps higher and longer Cold War tensions and a more severe red scare leads to politicians wanting more regulation/control of the media for national security.

- Turn the interstate highway system into a Interstate turnpike system with all the rest stops becoming government owned truck stops.

- Nuclear power plants owned by the Army Corps of Engineers?

- State governments already have state owned liquor stores. Have some of the state government take over tobacco stores and marijuana stores as well as even casinos.

- Then of course you have prison industries. Currently said industry is contracted out to private companies that work with the prison systems but it shouldn't be to hard to get said industry to be state owned.
 
Works fine here.
In Singapore, Changi Airport, and the flag airline , Singapore Airlines, have received laurels and awards for efficiency. Both are state-owned but despite that, do not really receive subsidies in the manner of Middle Eastern airlines. I tried isolating why some SOEs work in some countries but turn inefficient in others.
 
I am not fully familiar with the aerospace industries , I was under the impression the nig aerospace industries are owned by shareholders or is that not the case?
I’ve just watched PBSs documentary on deliberately undocumented 737 max computer control crashes. The extent to which the regulator is the capitalist and the government is mediating and ensuring the industry while demanding near zero rent. I feel confident in the situation matching my theoretical category.

the state is playing a major role as the capitalist, or the state has been captured by one specific capitalist. As I noted above private profit isn’t a problem in this category: it is about control over production and the state as an institution.
 
Top