entrepreneurship, getting rich and capitalism

[punisa]

Ok, I need some help here. Got some questions regarding the employment and work.
I've seen many threads criticize entrepreneurship by stating that business owners actually are the capitalists, which is by the definition true.

As I see it, each individual in a capitalist system is forced into working in a capitalist system. There are no "socialist" jobs out there, am I right? Well, in a socialist countries there are of course : )
And thus - like it or not, he feeds the "machine" because he must survive and this is as now the only way to do it.

So please help me understand this...
Person 1. Goes to work in a big business corporation and is slaving each day with a load of work and is - an oppressed working class

Person 2. Invests his/hers time, knowledge and money (if he has any, or gets a loan) and tries to get his/her idea off the ground and essentially be able to earn at least the amount the Person 1. is earning, only this time around he/her won't have an immediate boss breathing down the neck

And lets add this to equation, both are a devoted students of the socialist idea and both would be willing to fight for and live in a country/world with socialist humane rule.

For some reason, when I talked to some "knowledgeable" socialist, Person 1 is a true socialist wannabe, whille Person 2. is faking scum who is part of the elite, just currently still resides in a petite Bourgeoisie..
And this judgement is made upon not even knowing the people, but just by judging them upon their current occupation.
Is this too much?

What if the Person2. gets rich? Does that mean that he must change his views?

This is sort of generalizing , as to say that a child of a very wealthy businessman aka the fat capitalist, can not turn to socialism?

[Decommissioner]

I assume we must also take into account Person 2 doesn't hire workers for wages.

I am also curious how such individuals are received in most socialist and anarchist circles. I asked a question similar to this (except pertaining more personally to my situation) in the "how to determine someones social class" thread and I got no answer.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

For some reason, when I talked to some "knowledgeable" socialist, Person 1 is a true socialist wannabe, whille Person 2. is faking scum who is part of the elite, just currently still resides in a petite Bourgeoisie..Petite-bourgeoisie, to be more accurate.

It is not wrong to become an entrepreneur. In any society you need such people to innovate. The question turns to: how is this individual making their wealth? Is s/he receiving money for personal labor contributions, or is s/he using the state to protect his/her property from other workers?

[punisa]

There are many self employed people out there. There are also small business which are run entirely by a single family - say a farm that produces some products for market. All family members are involved and thus they manage to sell their products to survive.

The actual bourgeoisie doesn't do much, they sit on their asses and collect extra profit. You also have examples where you have the owner and let's say two workers. To make it stay operational, those two workers work from 9-5, while he works 9-midnight.
In such case the owner is actually "exploited". He is exploited by the economical model that pressures him into inhumane working hours only to survive.
Because in many cases, as we all know - one needs capital to start a business, and as our creative individual right there doesn't have any - he gets a loan, and thus becomes a slave to the system and its own creation. And seldom fails miserably, getting crushed much worse then a worker getting fired.

Still current socialist debate, as a socialist debate INSIDE of a capitalist model, pays little or no attention to these people. In fact many go after them, as stated before, for being a capitalist wannabes.

I speak from personal experience (my job is involved with personal contacts with these businesses), I know many self employed owners - with or without workers who are very socialist in their ideologies.

There are numerous instances of actually the workers exploiting their bosses. By either treating them of filing some made up lawsuit, close their business by shady practices or other. Like pregnant women getting hired just so they could take their pregnancy leave the next day, only to destroy the naive guy who signed her contract. She never wanted work in the first place and he being stuck with paying an invisible worker just might drive him out off business.

I could fill you up with dozens of more examples, but lets not run to far. Hope more people will join the discussion :)

[Coggeh]

There are many self employed people out there. There are also small business which are run entirely by a single family - say a farm that produces some products for market. All family members are involved and thus they manage to sell their products to survive.
I agree. I would not label those who work in their own business for a living the same as a worker as "petite bourgeois " I don't think its that simple .



The actual bourgeoisie doesn't do much, they sit on their asses and collect extra profit. You also have examples where you have the owner and let's say two workers. To make it stay operational, those two workers work from 9-5, while he works 9-midnight.
In such case the owner is actually "exploited". He is exploited by the economical model that pressures him into inhumane working hours only to survive.
Because in many cases, as we all know - one needs capital to start a business, and as our creative individual right there doesn't have any - he gets a loan, and thus becomes a slave to the system and its own creation. And seldom fails miserably, getting crushed much worse then a worker getting fired.

Still current socialist debate, as a socialist debate INSIDE of a capitalist model, pays little or no attention to these people. In fact many go after them, as stated before, for being a capitalist wannabes.
Their are socialists who do attack them , but I'm not sure if their too common . The point of basing our movement in the working class , is they and they alone have the power to overthrow the bourgeoisie . Which is why your example (albeit a good one) is a rariety simply because it doesn't apply .


I speak from personal experience (my job is involved with personal contacts with these businesses), I know many self employed owners - with or without workers who are very socialist in their ideologies.

There are numerous instances of actually the workers exploiting their bosses. By either treating them of filing some made up lawsuit, close their business by shady practices or other. Like pregnant women getting hired just so they could take their pregnancy leave the next day, only to destroy the naive guy who signed her contract. She never wanted work in the first place and he being stuck with paying an invisible worker just might drive him out off business.

I could fill you up with dozens of more examples, but lets not run to far. Hope more people will join the discussion Are you suggesting a pregnant woman can't look for work ?

These examples are rare , their occurrences that grab attention , what about the 1200 workers in DELL Ireland who just got told to go home even though DELL were announcing huge profits ?

Their are those who start maybe a family shop or a family farm or something with 2 or 3 friends that are basically workers . They can be socialists obviously and join any party freely. But socialists can't defend their rights , we can't organise them because what are they going to be fighting ? fighting against VAT tax rises , Wage increases if they employ someone,increases in "costly" benefits . I feel for a lot of them , but that is the fact of the matter .

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There are many self employed people out there. I'm one. I don't see self-employed individuals as being petite-bourgeoisie, but they deal with different circumstances in comparison to the more traditional proletariat.


In such case the owner is actually "exploited".No, the business owner is not exploited by his workers by such a discrepancy. The workers have no influence over property. The business owner might be working more, but that doesn't equate to exploitation.


There are also small business which are run entirely by a single family - say a farm that produces some products for market. All family members are involved and thus they manage to sell their products to survive.I think you'll find leftists who think family businesses should be forcefully seized are the exception - they just happen to be vocal.

As far as the small business owner goes, it is all relative to the situation. Humans can humble themselves even past their own good, and I imagine some would refuse to seek co-ownership over commercial property if they think the business owner is pulling more than a "fair" share of weight. These matters are nearly irrelevant to the larger goals of socialism. Small businesses can be handled through the traditional methods of sit-ins, strikes, and autonomism on an individual basis. In a situation where you have a boss and and employee, it would be wrong, for example, to force this worker to seek something s/he doesn't want. Educate, yes, but not force.

The point is to extinguish hierarchy, but creating larger hierarchies to remedy all problems is not the solution. As businesses become larger, the boss figure becomes more obscure, and his (or her) importance depends more and more on subordinates.

[punisa]

Are you suggesting a pregnant woman can't look for work ?

I'm around 99% sure you don't mean that I think that, and I don't :)



These examples are rare , their occurrences that grab attention

No friend, you are wrong on both statements unfortunately.
These examples are more then common and they never grab attention. Attention is reserved exclusively for large business organizations.
That actually explains why you were not aware of this.

Small business owners can rot without media paying any attention to it - its a competitive market some will say.
Thus majority are stuck in between, being despised by the proletariat as well as bourgeois.

What advice to give this grey group of men and women? Give up and join the slavery?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm one. I don't see self-employed individuals as being petite-bourgeoisie, but they deal with different circumstances in comparison to the more traditional proletariat.

No, the business owner is not exploited by his workers by such a discrepancy. The workers have no influence over property. The business owner might be working more, but that doesn't equate to exploitation.

I think you'll find leftists who think family businesses should be forcefully seized are the exception - they just happen to be vocal.

As far as the small business owner goes, it is all relative to the situation. Humans can humble themselves even past their own good, and I imagine some would refuse to seek co-ownership over commercial property if they think the business owner is pulling more than a "fair" share of weight. These matters are nearly irrelevant to the larger goals of socialism. Small businesses can be handled through the traditional methods of sit-ins, strikes, and autonomism on an individual basis. In a situation where you have a boss and and employee, it would be wrong, for example, to force this worker to seek something s/he doesn't want. Educate, yes, but not force.

The point is to extinguish hierarchy, but creating larger hierarchies to remedy all problems is not the solution. As businesses become larger, the boss figure becomes more obscure, and his (or her) importance depends more and more on subordinates.



Self-employed individuals usually are more highly specialized, filling niches in the economy that are not labeled as 'jobs' because of this fact. Often the self-employed / small business owner also has to invest certain amounts of capital into the running of the business, which is beyond the day-to-day commuting expenses of the more typical worker. The self-employed / small business is also more exposed to the market, and must be more maneuverable in relation to market demand, whereas the average worker risks all-or-nothing unemployment if the employing company can't stay profitable in prevailing market conditions.

In no case does either the typical worker or the self-employed / small business owner have any claims to the profits from large-scale, mass production operations -- their relationships to the means of mass production, assuming no stockholdings, remain identical to each other. As some have pointed out, the small business owner may even be extra-exploited, depending on (lack of) revenue and extra work hours put in, possibly comparable to a poorly compensated middle manager.

The point of communism is to *collectivize* all assets and resources so that the wastefulness of private efforts on innumerable small islands of business will be ended once and for all. I don't think we should hesitate to assert that *all* production-oriented facilities should be collectivized and put under local workers' administration in a revolutionary situation. People can certainly "opt out" of a communist economy, as long as they are not actually counter-revolutionary -- then their personal efforts would be considered a hobby and could even be funded as such.


Chris





--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Coggeh]

I'm around 99% sure you don't mean that I think that, and I don't :)

I didn't don't worry :) was just a point .



No friend, you are wrong on both statements unfortunately.
These examples are more then common and they never grab attention. Attention is reserved exclusively for large business organizations.
That actually explains why you were not aware of this.

Small business owners can rot without media paying any attention to it - its a competitive market some will say.
Thus majority are stuck in between, being despised by the proletariat as well as bourgeois.

What advice to give this grey group of men and women? Give up and join the slavery?What can a socialist organisation do for them now ?

Like i already stated we cannot fight for their rights , we cannot organise them as their position faces against workers .

Class is not decided by how much money you make but your position in society and we base our movement with the working class , not because their the poorest but because their the most exploited and the most powerful .

What would socialists be able to do for them anyway ?

Small business people who maybe own a shop or something would benefit from socialism and be better off I have no doubt , but their position is society is not a revolutionary one . They can join leftist parties no doubt , but we cannot use them as a class force , they cannot strike , their hurted when wages and benefits go up , so 9 times out of ten their going to disagree and even fight these motions .

In socialism their would of course be small shop owners and if say a guy was running a little shop to get him by , and pay went up to say 15euro per hour , and he couldn't afford that , the state would pay a certain part of the wages while he would pay the rest .

[punisa]

I didn't don't worry :) was just a point .

What can a socialist organisation do for them now ?

Like i already stated we cannot fight for their rights , we cannot organise them as their position faces against workers .

Class is not decided by how much money you make but your position in society and we base our movement with the working class , not because their the poorest but because their the most exploited and the most powerful .

What would socialists be able to do for them anyway ?

Small business people who maybe own a shop or something would benefit from socialism and be better off I have no doubt , but their position is society is not a revolutionary one . They can join leftist parties no doubt , but we cannot use them as a class force , they cannot strike , their hurted when wages and benefits go up , so 9 times out of ten their going to disagree and even fight these motions .

In socialism their would of course be small shop owners and if say a guy was running a little shop to get him by , and pay went up to say 15euro per hour , and he couldn't afford that , the state would pay a certain part of the wages while he would pay the rest .

I see that you are quoting me some textbook Marxist examples, which is not a bad thing at all :)
Living for years in socialist Yugoslavia, I don't recall any problems between the working class and small businesses. Then again, there just weren't many problems during the Yugoslavia :lol:

But let me develop this debate. If these entrepreneurs became self employed because of the sole fact that they feel incredible hate towards the rulers and oppressors, wouldn't it be common sense that they indeed qualify as socialists?
Wait wait, before you reach for another "belonging to class" theory, there's more here :lol:

IF they are themselves exploited by the system in which they operate, why do you never consider the possibility that these men and women would gladly abandon their "boss" positions and join the proletariat if such conditions are met?
They would accomplish what they were after in the first place, secure the clothing, food and shelter for themselves and their families. In a socialist government these necessities are provided. And I remember well :)

They would revert back to humane working hours, wouldnt have to remain under constant stress and uncertainty and could use all their skills, ideas and knowledge for the overall benefit of the united working class.
They would also feel much less burden on their socialising status, they would belong to a much larger community now and wouldn't have to be alienated from so many - because no matter how good the boss tries to be, he'll still be hated by all employees.
Darn, I'm getting all passionate about it because I know these people, I had the exact talks with them.

Hey, many of them would gladly trade places with their employees ! For regular pay checks at least. Are you aware that many in fact earn less then their workers? If you want I have data to back it up :)

But still I have a feeling that you comrade Coggy, and many others, will look upon my statements with much scepticism...

Sure, many self employed would love to climb up to the ruling class. But the same goes for the working class as well, lets not be naive shall we?
This is a common problem that we'll have to tackle and educate people against it.
But from my perspective equal number of workers and self-employed is socialist and vice-versa, equal number is upper class wannabe.

The usual idea that the self employed "maybe" has greater chances in becoming upper ruling class, means nothing if we view it only upon what one is thinking and aspires to become.

Yes, they will complain if the they have to pay out higher salaries to their workers, but lets not forget that these complaints are coming from operating in a capitalist system. A system where money is everything, the sole survival.
Once the time is right for a revolution, it would go much smoother if the small businesses are on our side.
Yes I say OUR side, as I'm working class as well.

Entrepreneurs have much needed skills in organizing and getting the job flow going. They could be a huge benefit in establishing the socialist system.
If I was asked, I'd put equal "persuasion" on them, as well as the working class, to aspire towards the same goal - socialist rule, the rule of the working men and women.

[Coggeh]

I see that you are quoting me some textbook Marxist examples, which is not a bad thing at all :)
Living for years in socialist Yugoslavia, I don't recall any problems between the working class and small businesses. Then again, there just weren't many problems during the Yugoslavia :lol:

But let me develop this debate. If these entrepreneurs became self employed because of the sole fact that they feel incredible hate towards the rulers and oppressors, wouldn't it be common sense that they indeed qualify as socialists?
Wait wait, before you reach for another "belonging to class" theory, there's more here :lol:

IF they are themselves exploited by the system in which they operate, why do you never consider the possibility that these men and women would gladly abandon their "boss" positions and join the proletariat if such conditions are met?
They would accomplish what they were after in the first place, secure the clothing, food and shelter for themselves and their families. In a socialist government these necessities are provided. And I remember well :)

They would revert back to humane working hours, wouldnt have to remain under constant stress and uncertainty and could use all their skills, ideas and knowledge for the overall benefit of the united working class.
They would also feel much less burden on their socialising status, they would belong to a much larger community now and wouldn't have to be alienated from so many - because no matter how good the boss tries to be, he'll still be hated by all employees.
Darn, I'm getting all passionate about it because I know these people, I had the exact talks with them.

Hey, many of them would gladly trade places with their employees ! For regular pay checks at least. Are you aware that many in fact earn less then their workers? If you want I have data to back it up :)

But still I have a feeling that you comrade Coggy, and many others, will look upon my statements with much scepticism...

Sure, many self employed would love to climb up to the ruling class. But the same goes for the working class as well, lets not be naive shall we?
This is a common problem that we'll have to tackle and educate people against it.
But from my perspective equal number of workers and self-employed is socialist and vice-versa, equal number is upper class wannabe.

The usual idea that the self employed "maybe" has greater chances in becoming upper ruling class, means nothing if we view it only upon what one is thinking and aspires to become.

Yes, they will complain if the they have to pay out higher salaries to their workers, but lets not forget that these complaints are coming from operating in a capitalist system. A system where money is everything, the sole survival.
Once the time is right for a revolution, it would go much smoother if the small businesses are on our side.
Yes I say OUR side, as I'm working class as well.

Entrepreneurs have much needed skills in organizing and getting the job flow going. They could be a huge benefit in establishing the socialist system.
If I was asked, I'd put equal "persuasion" on them, as well as the working class, to aspire towards the same goal - socialist rule, the rule of the working men and women.
They can be socialists I have no doubt about that , i know many people personally who are really left who run their own business , like a guy who owns a pub and has a picture of marx behind the bar .Their is no doubt they can be socialist . Thats not my point .

The power lies with the workers , the entrepreneurs and small businesses are if you will "wildcards" some may side with the revolution , others won't . They cannot be organised with workers , as they don't have bosses to fight against , that's not their fault I'm not attacking them personally or saying they should be workers . What I'm saying is they don't have the power to change society , to bring capitalism down . They just don't , don't mistake this for an insult by the way this is just marxist fact lol .:blink:

Entrepreneurs are not exploited in the same way workers are , its not about the amount some small businessmen may earn its their relationship to those earnings . Some may work but are working for themselves , also they benefit from other workers labour (if they employ) the same profit idea applies here as when a large company does it . Albeit its not the same ballpark ... not even the same league ... but it is the same sport lol.:)

A worker will work 6 hours doing whatever ,and the surplus value of his work will go in profit to the employer . Its the same relationship . Its exploitive by its nature .

Small businesses will exist in socialism , the people who run them will benefit greatly from socialism I have no doubt . But they are still not a revolutionary class ,this is not some marxist "who's got the bigger cock arguement" :lol:, a lot of what your saying is true but it doesn't change what I've outlined above .

[punisa]

They can be socialists I have no doubt about that , i know many people personally who are really left who run their own business , like a guy who owns a pub and has a picture of marx behind the bar .Their is no doubt they can be socialist . Thats not my point .

The power lies with the workers , the entrepreneurs and small businesses are if you will "wildcards" some may side with the revolution , others won't . They cannot be organised with workers , as they don't have bosses to fight against , that's not their fault I'm not attacking them personally or saying they should be workers . What I'm saying is they don't have the power to change society , to bring capitalism down . They just don't , don't mistake this for an insult by the way this is just marxist fact lol .:blink:

Entrepreneurs are not exploited in the same way workers are , its not about the amount some small businessmen may earn its their relationship to those earnings . Some may work but are working for themselves , also they benefit from other workers labour (if they employ) the same profit idea applies here as when a large company does it . Albeit its not the same ballpark ... not even the same league ... but it is the same sport lol.:)

A worker will work 6 hours doing whatever ,and the surplus value of his work will go in profit to the employer . Its the same relationship . Its exploitive by its nature .

Small businesses will exist in socialism , the people who run them will benefit greatly from socialism I have no doubt . But they are still not a revolutionary class ,this is not some marxist "who's got the bigger cock arguement" :lol:, a lot of what your saying is true but it doesn't change what I've outlined above .

I agree with everything you've said, and I see you've put some thought into it. I'm satisfied by this debate from my point of view :lol:
My only idea here is to exploit small owners to join the revolution, no matter if they are the revolutionary class or not :laugh:

The less enemy we fight, more are the chances of our success, right?

To be perfectly honest with you guys - I'm sometimes worried that socialists are not paying enough attention when it comes to bringing external class members to our side.. :(

Many will label EVERYTHING except the working class as "enemy". These methods will not work in 21.century I'm afraid.
There are "moles" that could be on our side in all classes - small business owners, police, military even the politics.

Please don't call me idealist, I know I am :lol:

[Coggeh]

I agree with everything you've said, and I see you've put some thought into it. I'm satisfied by this debate from my point of view :lol:
My only idea here is to exploit small owners to join the revolution, no matter if they are the revolutionary class or not :laugh:

The less enemy we fight, more are the chances of our success, right?

To be perfectly honest with you guys - I'm sometimes worried that socialists are not paying enough attention when it comes to bringing external class members to our side.. :(

Many will label EVERYTHING except the working class as "enemy". These methods will not work in 21.century I'm afraid.
There are "moles" that could be on our side in all classes - small business owners, police, military even the politics.

Please don't call me idealist, I know I am :lol:
They can come to our side and many do , our party the C.W.I for example defended the prison guards right to strike despite the fact we got huge criticisms from the ultra left who claimed they were natural enemies of the workers .

With concern to the military , I see soldiers in the army as exploited and are workers . They are a revolutionary class to me , I think many on the left mix up class conciousness of people with them being naturally reactionary or "petit-bourgeois" .