This makes no sense on multiple levels. Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act.
> Nationalization can be involve control instead of ownership
There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation. Because at that point, every merger denial or FDA approval is also nationalisation.
> Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act.
Socialism, the system, requires widespread nationalization in the form of both control and ownership of assets.
> There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation.
Again, nationalization is taking state ownership or control. A forcible government breakup of an organization is clear state control of it, albeit for a brief period.
Thought experiment:
Venezuela, instead of outright confiscation, chooses instead to leave shareholders in possession of their shares in oil production. They install state-selected management and impose a 100% tax on profits. Is this nationalization?
> forcible government breakup of an organization is clear state control of it
You’re defining control in a way that extends to all regulation.
The AT&T break-up has been heavily cited and written about. Do you have a single expert who agrees with your claim that it constituted nationalisation? (Let’s even assume AT&T was actually ordered to break up, versus voluntarily doing so to settle a lawsuit.)
> instead of outright confiscation, chooses instead to leave shareholders in possession of their shares in oil production. They install state-selected management and impose a 100% tax on profits.
Now remove the confiscation of profits and selection of state-selected management.
This makes no sense on multiple levels. Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act.
> Nationalization can be involve control instead of ownership
There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation. Because at that point, every merger denial or FDA approval is also nationalisation.