Are nationizations a reformist or revolutionary tactic

"The Socialist Equality Party calls for the expropriation of the major corporations and banks and their transformation into public utilities."

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/07/12/pers-j12.html

Is this not a demand for the transformation of private sector capitalism to State Capitalism?

We have to control governments as a social class, i.e. the working class. Then it will be safe to move capital into the direct control of the government. Lenin mentioned in his "State and Revolution" how the government could give the illusion of objectivity when the warring classes balance out each others power. However this is not the same as actually controlling the government as a class. For a capitalist government to its very core is comprised of the most loyal figures of the capitalist class. It must be absolutely destroyed too be rendered harmless.

State capitalism is the essence of Stalinism. I am sad to write that comrade Trotsky had made a mistake on this issue. It is hard for any father to completely denounce your own child even one that completely betrays and wants to kill you. So I understand the roots of Trotsky's very human mistake.

His fetish of inventing a non class evil bureaucracy and attributing it supra class like attributes was unworthy of Comrade Trotsky. He was hiding the vital role his own class had on the 1917 Revolution. The petty bourgeois has proven in history the capacity to remain revolutionary only for short periods. They all betray after a short time. Comrade Trotsky was hiding the fact that the Working class did not control their revolution. It was managed for them by exceptional and loyal for a time petty bourgeois. I have no doubts in the loyalty and competence of Lenin and Trotsky. They did what the very immature working class could not do for themselves. They did their duty as individual revolutionaries. But it was to much to ask for from the rest of the petty bourgeois, as a class, leaders of the party.

I believe Lenin understood this dilemma thus his desperate efforts in Poland. As well as Trotsky his equally desperate defence of a very unpopular to the petty bourgeois of "Permanent Revolution". Both leaders knew the importance of true Internationalism. And the dangers of the ""Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Internationalism of petty bourgeois nationalists.

Returning to the subject of the article, why not demand a Soviet? Transfer this capital into an institution directly controlled by the Working class. Its the best next thing that is is less demanding than an outright Social revolution. There is a danger of building a cooperative. However if the capital is large enough it poses to great a threat to the capitalists to allow and corrupt it. Unless the working class controls these respective Capitalist governments what's the point of making them more powerful.

If the working class controls these governments then would this not constitute a Social Revolution? Then what you are really asking the working class to do is overthrow the Capitalists and are being deceitful in your real demand.

I suspect that you are not. That you are just repeating a reformist nationalization mistake that has already proven to be a mistake over and over again.