It's a bit of a fuck, yes, but it seems like a solid argument against privatization is that a) it really only seems to succeed wildly when the state or the public still has enough oversight to accomplish the public service role and b) it's not driven solely by fetishization of quarterly performance. At that point you can whittle down to an aesthetic argument the difference between a :agony-deep: public-private partnership and a worker-owned co-op. Once you start defining a radicalizing concept in terms their ghoul minds can understand, you can start wearing cracks in the weaker ideologues. It's entryism for WSJ monsters.