Don’t buy into the grifts. Dismantle them.
We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
Submitted 9 months ago by Pro@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world
https://jacobin.com/2025/06/musk-trump-nationalize-spacex-starlink
Comments
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
TheBannedLemming@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I am not saying that I don’t agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.
Obi@sopuli.xyz 9 months ago
Yes it’s the right long term goal, but the US is nowhere near ready for strong nationalised enterprises, they would just stop getting funding and die. There is a requirement for strong, positive minded government and a shared understanding of the benefits of having nationalised societal services before it can work.
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
I disagree.
-
You already have a government space agency. Maybe give them more funding so they don’t have to rely on space-x to get their stuff into orbit?
-
There’s a national telecom network already in place. It at least has the potential to be faster and more reliable, if it isn’t already… At least compared to low earth orbit satellite coverage.
There’s no good reason to continue providing Elon or his companies with any government handouts. Pull that funding and give it to… I dunno, students who have more debt than homeowners with a mortgage… NASA… Literally anything that helps people?
-
Knightfox@lemmy.world 9 months ago
A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn’t want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn’t pay him what it’s worth to take it over.
What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s also well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all this shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 9 months ago
What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
The problem they don’t see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like “XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president can seize it”.
Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.
Tipical case of not looking beyond one’s nose
why0y@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
No I would not like taxpayer dollars to buy out Elons shit shows.
Hard pass. Thanks no thanks jacobin
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
No, we should regain control of our nation from fascists (this does not mean just replace the President), then nationalize SpaceX and Starlink, and make telecoms public utilities.
frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 9 months ago
There’s already NASA which gets piss poor funding iirc
hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
Starlink should be globalized. A planet only needs one low-altitude orbiting communications network. Better to standardize the technology and platform and let them contribute to one system than to have a dozen identical competing systems crashing into each other and fucking things up for everyone.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Ah. My Kessler syndrome is acting up again.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 9 months ago
There is no such thing as something being “globalized” The UN for instance is a debating club where the majority of the seats represent individual dictators who dominate but do not speak for their countries citizens.
The idea of 50 countries collectively providing 0% of the funds should determine the mission is somewhat laughable. Also no country on earth has a process by which foreign dictators can seize or direct a company run out of their nation.
Angular2575@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
No, we already have NASA
gian@lemmy.grys.it 9 months ago
Then make it work.
Angular2575@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
Stop cutting their funding and saying the earth is flat and that global warming is a myth.
minorkeys@lemmy.world 9 months ago
You have NASA FFS. Just fund it.
Inucune@lemmy.world 9 months ago
NASA is too beholden to politics… You can’t do 7 year builds and missions when the Senate flips every 4 years and has to kill everything the other side did on principle that it has a D or R attached to it. Everything is political.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
<.< Legitimate question, what was the last thing each party killed that was put in place by the other party?
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I wouldn’t nationalize anything long as the orange could possibly profit off it
gamer@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Throw Musk in prison for his many documented crimes, but don’t support this kind of dictator shit.
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Best time would’ve been when he pulled that stunt in Ukraine, second best time is now
breecher@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Now when a Putin simp is leading the country?
sommerset@thelemmy.club 9 months ago
What? Why?
.he wants to create a 3rd party, let him.laber@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The nationalization of SpaceX will mean a slowdown in development, like in the case of NASA.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Because American politicians would rather spend the money on engaging international wars. NASA will only get the funding it desperately needs if one of US’ rivals one up them, like how the launch of Sputnik spurred the race to the moon.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 9 months ago
Ignoring the lack of evidence or argument presented here for that, I’d rather take a slowdown than Musk get a single new dollar.
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
sounds good who gives a shit
RhondaSandTits@lemmy.sdf.org 9 months ago
Don’t give bail-outs to billionaires.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 9 months ago
Then don’t reimburse him.
vga@sopuli.xyz 9 months ago
Any political take from Jacobin can be safely ignored.
QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
If not Musk should be forced from his roles in these companies. You cannot be a defense contractor and do ketamine.
kokesh@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Exactly. SpaceX was sunder scrutiny when he smoked doobie on a podcast. Now he is on drugs and nothing happens.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
how can you trust a board that trusts such incompetence, for DOD projects no less?
failure up and down.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 9 months ago
DOD is also responsible for what they accept.
r_deckard@lemmy.world 9 months ago
And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?
TronBronson@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Seriously this comment doesn’t make any sense. It’s like you do not understand what you are commenting on and yet here you are with four up votes and now have my down vote and go forth and use a dictionary before you comment non ct time
TronBronson@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Dude… nationalize just means the US takes ownership of the company. They keep all the employees they keep all the customers. It runs like normal under new ownership. The taxpayers now own it. it’s a great idea.
You see too long we have been using public funding and allowing rich people to privatize the gains. It’s time to privatize those games and take back what we invested in as US citizens. We will still offer you eurocucks Internet since apparently it is more important than having a moral fiber in your body
r_deckard@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I didn’t say it was a bad thing, I wanted to know about some of the broader implications, e.g. govt ownership doesn’t remove legal obligations. I doubt the govt could continue to offer service under the previous T&C, some sections would need revision. And Starlink’s T&C are slightly different in some countries, as are the operating conditions. Some countries who are nominally friendly with Starlink/SpaceX to allow ground stations, POPs, etc, might not be so keen on the US govt controlling things.
These are just some of the things that popped into my head when I read the article.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
SpaceX’s largest customer is the US government; once that relationship has been repaired I’m ambivalent about private/public ownership.
HMmmmM?
because let’s be honest, without tons of US GOV’T SUPPORT, SpaceX wouldn’t have ever been able to provide all those POPs, terminals and services. Funny thing that.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
That would literally be the worse thing that could happen with regards to them, because they only exist and thrived because they are private enterprise. If the government were capable of doing what those companies do and doing it well, SpaceX and Starlink wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Can you even imagine just how much money would be wasted and misused and unaccounted for, while nothing actually got done?
Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is delusional
squaresinger@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Again someone who thinks that public policies are natural laws…
NASA could do and did do what SpaceX is doing now, but they are beholden to the government and if the government says “we don’t do that for ideologigal reasons” then it doesn’t matter what can be done.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
Ideological reasons? You think nasa hasn’t made reusable self landing rockets and boosters because of ideological reasons?
freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Please. They only exist because of government funding. If NASA had as many rockets explode as SpaceX has, people like you would be screaming about the waste of taxpayer dollars.
Also, it’s only a matter of time before starlink satellites crash into each other and start a chain reaction. You can kiss space travel goodbye after that.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
If NASA had as many rockets explode as SpaceX has, people like you would be screaming about the waste of taxpayer dollars.
The point of the launches that have ended in explosion were to test various parts of the systems and hardware, and to learn if/when a “disaster” does happen. That’s how you improve things, make them better and safer. Would you prefer when we finally send people to the moon or to Mars that it’s the first time we’ve launched that rocket? Those explosions weren’t bad things.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
isn’t it amazing how much private companies can do when given hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from the federal teat?
wow. that private enterprise just rocketing up out of the atmosphere by yanking on it’s bootstraps so hard.
just, you know, after a few more hundred million, burp. ahem. just a few more.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
[deleted]Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Nasa with less risk aversion. If a Nasa rocket blows up that’s big news. If a Space X rocket blows up, that’s a Tuesday.
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
yeah but if SpaceX becomes NASA then what
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No, they’re fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.
TronBronson@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I agreed with this sentiment six months ago, but now I like public hangings and nationalizing companies
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Nobody thinks about that, just about hitting the people they don’t like. They don’t think of consequences, they don’t think that nationalization means humongous companies and wealth in fact changing hands in favor of people who already control the government.
That’s every fascist regime in history BTW - make your natural opponents hang themselves. Like in Russia in 1999 groups people most hurt by Yeltsin’s regime were deceived into voting for Putin, because he managed to create that “Soviet intelligence agent” image, despite being continuation of said regime. Or again in 2004, when he managed to take credit for growing oil prices, which meant that said groups of people feared literal starvation less, and the factor they’ve grown by compared to 1998 was so huge, that Russia’s level of life really didn’t catch up, but that was enough. Hold people in misery, throw them bones, they’ll be grateful.
Also why most Russians gloated over Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, other oligarchs being beaten by Putin.
Cause the oligarchs seemed the face of that regime, except Putin was its soul materialized. They somehow thought that when he hurts all the oligarchs enough, things will be good.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 9 months ago
This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.
QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Would you support forcing Musk out of his roles in these companies due to his drug useage?
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yes
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Nah fuck the shareholders, if they do something we depend on and pay for it with tax dollars then we should own them.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yeah, we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that’s fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It’s fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they’re delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn’t just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.
That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I’m with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should’ve receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn’t nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.
Sunflier@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I think that’s a complicated question. It’s both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the sets, or at least reinforces, thr concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be natuobalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
remember the halcyon days when NASA could do something and the president might not like it, but they were all FUCKING ADULTS and the grift was well distributed amongst the congresscreatures, so it never devolved into adolescent twitter whining?
goddamn those were better than whatever this shit is
deathbird@mander.xyz 9 months ago
Not so much because Elon is the way he is, but because the company is vital to the national interest.
Sunflier@lemmy.world 9 months ago
That too
Campliving69@aussie.zone 9 months ago
Agreed. These are things that should be of the people.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
These things only exist and are as good as they are because they’re not government owned and run.
Look at NASA compared to SpaceX to see why this would be an absolutely terrible move. Government is where projects like these go to die, while making every politician and contractor involved filthy rich.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 9 months ago
So how come NASA was doing all these things before SpaceX even existented? SpaceX never put anyone on the moon. NASA did.
Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 9 months ago
It dying is better than it being in the hands of a billionaire fascist.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.
Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Such an effort would be likely to fail AND take longer than the current administration is likely to exist.
Subverb@lemmy.world 9 months ago
One way to get businesses to move their factories back to the US due to tarrifs: Start nationalizing them.
/s
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Take the /s off the ruskies might believe you and run with it
mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
I mean if they’re utilities, we shouldn’t let a board decide what should rightfully be in the hands of taxpayers. Really they should welcome a stable (OK maybe not so stable in the US atm, but generally…) owner as the government.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 9 months ago
Just because something is a “utility” it doesn’t mean that the government should own and run it lol.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The precedent that will set and the implications… No… We should not do this.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The precedent that will set and the implications
and what precedent is there for dealing with the executive of your country’s entire space launch infrastructure when they become dependent on horse drugs?
No really, what’s the precedent here, I want to know. Because if we set a precedent by ignoring it until the problem is impossible to ignore, that’s gonna be a far more expensive fix.
So yeah, yeah we should consider this very strongly.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 9 months ago
If the government actually nationalized SpaceX, the precedent would be insane. You’d be telling every private company working in defense, infrastructure, or tech that if they become too essential, the government might just take it. Doesn’t matter how much risk or capital they fronted.
SpaceX isn’t just launching rockets for fun—it’s practically a branch of the U.S. space program at this point. GPS, Starlink for military comms, launching classified payloads, putting astronauts in orbit. If we nationalize that over a political pissing match between Trump and Musk, we’re basically saying innovation is conditional on obedience.
And let’s be honest—once you do this to SpaceX, you open the door to doing it to AWS, Tesla’s energy grid systems, Google’s AI infrastructure. Any private company that gets too important suddenly becomes “too critical to stay private.” That’s a fast track to killing private innovation in sectors where we need it most.
If Trump’s threatening funding, and Musk is threatening to walk, and the public’s response is “just take the company,” then we’ve officially politicized the tech-industrial base. That’s not governance, that’s dysfunction.
Nationalizing SpaceX would be a Cold War move in a modern economy. It might feel good in the moment, but long-term, it’s a terrible idea.
turtlesareneat@discuss.online 9 months ago
Nationalization is the opposite of privatization, it’s how the US’s bureaucratic state was really built, we should absolutely do this and right now is the time
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No, this is just pure ignorance. The US never nationalized any sector. The US has only used nationalization as a means to stabilize certain sectors from collapse temporarily, and even this happens very rarely.
Nationalization stable, growing industries would have devastating impacts on the economy. These companies are running just fine, and they’re providing their services reliably and at competitive prices, what would be the justification to nationalize them? If the government feels like it needs more control on these companies they can pass regulations, and if they want total control then they should launch their own public alternatives.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’ve been saying this for years. the footprint that spaceX represents in national launch authority is out of whack to say the least.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 9 months ago
When’s the last time the US nationalised something?
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
we should probably invest in making sure people have affordable housing, food, and healthcare before worrying about militarising space.