big business vs small business vs coops

[Pierson's]

what are people's thoughts on big vs small businesses? i personally don't have any moral qualms regarding ripping off big businesses, for example exploiting "free refills" by topping up a drink bottle, or providing to friends, or, if i'm stayign at a hotle that offers free breakfast, takign a lunch box and getting enough food for the rest of the day. however, when i go to small, local places, i feel a lot less willing to rip them off. after all, these small businesses are surely better than the big!
i understand though, that many people see them all as the same, just capitalist companies exploiting the workers. what if though, the small place was a worker's run coop? with all the workers earnign the same wage? they aren't exploiting themselves.
thoughts?

[jake williams]

They're not "the same", but the difference is not so clear. For example, at a lot of places with free refills, you're not ripping off the "big business" per se, but you're ripping off the franchisee. You can decide for yourself if that's what you want to do, of course, but one significant ability of big capitalists is to transfer costs, to much smaller mini-capitalists and especially to workers.

[ArrowLance]

There is less difference than you might think, we should not be softer on 'small capitalists,' they are capitalists all the same.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

In general I do not believe the petty-bougeoisie is capable of revolutionary thought, but there are exceptions.

As for co-ops, they are still working within a system of capital and markets. I oppose all forms of wage slavery and exploitation. Co-ops included.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

what are people's thoughts on big vs small businesses? i personally don't have any moral qualms regarding ripping off big businesses, for example exploiting "free refills" by topping up a drink bottle,Firstly, this methodology will contribute absolutely nothing to the promotion of socialism, but if there was an impact, it would be felt either by the workers or the poor sod stuck in the abysmally stressful position known as "franchisee." Capitalists respond to such losses with price cuts, or they pull out and leave the establishment wheeling in a strapped cash scenario.

Trust me, businesses are screwing you over through the "soda refill" ploy. Even if you have a net cost of $15 on McDonalds, they are making up all that effort in ten meals. Plus, you're the sucker who probably bought the large cup for $2 more than what it was worth.

The only real, sustainable damage one can do against a capitalist firm is to have the workers strike, or better yet, take over the firm. Stealing from the store, or breaking the equipment, or finding "clever" ways to fight "Big Business" hurts your fellow workers.


however, when i go to small, local places, i feel a lot less willing to rip them off. after all, these small businesses are surely better than the big!
Some are. Some aren't. Generally, small businesses are more about human interactions than the mechanical pursuit of capital, but don't be stooped into thinking your local lawn mower entrepreneur isn't manipulating the poor labor force beneath him. I would say small businesses are somewhat better than big businesses in how they treat the workers - if not for the reason you can find more respect for a business owner who actually employs his labor - but in terms of service they are much better at servicing customers. But they're still ultimately controlling the means of production through private hands, and transitionally need to be dealt with by the workers. "Dealt with" not meaning bring harm, of course.


i understand though, that many people see them all as the same, just capitalist companies exploiting the workers. what if though, the small place was a worker's run coop? with all the workers earnign the same wage? they aren't exploiting themselves.Coops as a transitional tool should be supported, but as the end goal, there should be an elimination of wage labor.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Coops as a transitional tool should be supported, but as the end goal, there should be an elimination of wage labor.

"Producer cooperatives with state aid"? ;)

With all the talk of cooperatives in economics and organized labour just following my article on "pre-cooperative worker buyouts," Ferdinand Lassalle's political strategy on cooperatives should be rehabilitated, if only stripped of its panacea (i.e., the road to the elimination of wage labour lies only through Lassalle's slogan).

[rebelmouse]

Very often I take without to pay, in big or small business, I don't care. But I don't take to sell, I take for my personal needs: food, clothes, sleeping bag, underleyer, jacket, shoes, etc. denmark is very expensive and as a homeless.... I must take without to pay. If I have 2000 euro per month like Danes, I would pay, but I would use my salary for revolutionary activities also. Although when many people take without to pay, surely, there is damage for capitalists. and I like very much what Roma people did in Chekia or Slovakia, 100 of them run into big shop/store and they take massively how much they can and run away.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Coops as a transitional tool should be supported, but as the end goal, there should be an elimination of wage labor.


But at what period in time are you advocating the idea of co-ops and what do you mean in practice. Are you advocating we should organise into co-ops within our system of Capitalist markets or advocating them post-revolution?

[Dejavu]

Firstly, this methodology will contribute absolutely nothing to the promotion of socialism, but if there was an impact, it would be felt either by the workers or the poor sod stuck in the abysmally stressful position known as "franchisee." Capitalists respond to such losses with price cuts, or they pull out and leave the establishment wheeling in a strapped cash scenario.

Trust me, businesses are screwing you over through the "soda refill" ploy. Even if you have a net cost of $15 on McDonalds, they are making up all that effort in ten meals. Plus, you're the sucker who probably bought the large cup for $2 more than what it was worth.

The only real, sustainable damage one can do against a capitalist firm is to have the workers strike, or better yet, take over the firm. Stealing from the store, or breaking the equipment, or finding "clever" ways to fight "Big Business" hurts your fellow workers.


Some are. Some aren't. Generally, small businesses are more about human interactions than the mechanical pursuit of capital, but don't be stooped into thinking your local lawn mower entrepreneur isn't manipulating the poor labor force beneath him. I would say small businesses are somewhat better than big businesses in how they treat the workers - if not for the reason you can find more respect for a business owner who actually employs his labor - but in terms of service they are much better at servicing customers. But they're still ultimately controlling the means of production through private hands, and transitionally need to be dealt with by the workers. "Dealt with" not meaning bring harm, of course.

Coops as a transitional tool should be supported, but as the end goal, there should be an elimination of wage labor.




True co-ops are profit sharing enterprises. The workers are the investors. I don't see how their internal structure is exploitative even by communist standards. Btw, Gene. The McDonald's sodas contain abnormally high levels of high fructose corn syrup and that contains bits of mercury. Once this junk is digested by your body it receives a signal from the brain that the body is more hungry than it actually is. The idea is to get you to eat more McDonald's , the drinks contribute to the addictive element. So yeah , of course they are going to let you drink it up. ( just recently they were selling large soda for like 70 cents)

FDA approved, btw. They're looking out for us...

[Dejavu]

But at what period in time are you advocating the idea of co-ops and what do you mean in practice. Are you advocating we should organise into co-ops within our system of Capitalist markets or advocating them post-revolution?

I'd do it now and form other co-ops for other services as well. Its a great incentive to quit encouraging the working class to support he capitalist welfare state and become loyal to it.

[Psy]

True co-ops are profit sharing enterprises. The workers are the investors. I don't see how their internal structure is exploitative even by communist standards.
Co-op exploit the workers through the market, the workers have to exploit themselves more and more to counteract the falling rate of profit as co-ops don't solve the contradiction of capitalism.

Communism is not about profit sharing, we are against profits, profits comes from the difference of the value the worker creates and what the worker gets back.

[Dejavu]

Co-op exploit the workers through the market, the workers have to exploit themselves more and more to counteract the falling rate of profit as co-ops don't solve the contradiction of capitalism.

Communism is not about profit sharing, we are against profits, profits comes from the difference of the value the worker creates and what the worker gets back.

If the worker is profiting fully from what he made and set the mode of production himself , what difference of value is there?

Did you listen to what you said? The workers have to exploit themselves? :rolleyes:

The first part of your post made absolutely no sense to me. Maybe you can explain it another way that does make sense. Thanks.

[Psy]

If the worker is profiting fully from what he made and set the mode of production himself , what difference of value is there?

Did you listen to what you said? The workers have to exploit themselves? :rolleyes:

The first part of your post made absolutely no sense to me. Maybe you can explain it another way that does make sense. Thanks.

The co-op is not the entire market, the co-op workers will be competing with capitalists exploiting workers in order to make surplus value to invest to extract even more surplus value. Thus the workers of the co-op have to exploit themselves to get surplus value to compete on the market so they can extract surplus value from production. This is compounded with the falling rate of profit, meaning as time goes on they would have to worker harder and get less to stay competitive in the market.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is compounded with the falling rate of profit, meaning as time goes on they would have to worker harder and get less to stay competitive in the market. In markets the falling rate of profit can often be associated with industrial innovation and changing demand patterns. Cotton is a prime example of this. In the postbellum South many farmers were reaping less cash (while producing increasing amounts of cotton) due to overproduction. There was a huge backlash against this deflation of profit, but had someone intervened it would have just stunted developing markets elsewhere and restricted supply - thus why the Farmers' Alliance actually proposed government-mandated scarcity.

Markets are an inadequate long-term institution of commerce because they rely on scarcity; humanity strives for abundance, and where it exists, such as information/music, we see that a gift economy develops instead of markets (at least markets as we currently conceive of them). But the transition away from markets must (will be?) organic; it will not come about through the state seizing all property and collectivizing it. We see how well that goes over, and how black markets respond accordingly due to the fact they are an extension of scarcity.


Thus the workers of the co-op have to exploit themselves to get surplus value to compete on the market so they can extract surplus value from production.You can't exploit yourself.

[Dejavu]

The co-op is not the entire market, the co-op workers will be competing with capitalists exploiting workers in order to make surplus value to invest to extract even more surplus value. Thus the workers of the co-op have to exploit themselves to get surplus value to compete on the market so they can extract surplus value from production. This is compounded with the falling rate of profit, meaning as time goes on they would have to worker harder and get less to stay competitive in the market.


I still fail to see how they are exploiting themselves. Surplus value diminishes when something becomes less scarce, it has very little to do with the actual labor itself aside from producing more of the same item. The less of something you have then surplus value increases. Otherwise, you have overproduction and wasting of resources which necessarily produces shortages in other things workers can make with the same resources. In a market, prices determined by supply and demand dictate the allocation of these resources.

[Dejavu]

In markets the falling rate of profit can often be associated with industrial innovation and changing demand patterns. Cotton is a prime example of this. In the postbellum South many farmers were reaping less cash (while producing increasing amounts of cotton) due to overproduction. There was a huge backlash against this deflation of profit, but had someone intervened it would have just stunted developing markets elsewhere and restricted supply - thus why the Farmers' Alliance actually proposed government-mandated scarcity.

Markets are an inadequate long-term institution of commerce because they rely on scarcity; humanity strives for abundance, and where it exists, such as information/music, we see that a gift economy develops instead of markets (at least markets as we currently conceive of them).

Your deduction makes no sense. Workers will take from their own wallet money necessary to expand their own business. Ouch. Scary. Terrible.

If price signals are allowed to function correctly then any overproduction gets liquidated and the resources go elsewhere for some other production.
I don't think it stands to reason that just because quasi gift economies exist in certain areas that markets are inadequate in long term commerce. I agree with you in general that when a resource becomes abundant enough for all with little to no cost then the market plays less of a role because it does not need to. Markets deal with the allocation of scarce resources as you pointed out.

I agree with your last comment about his deduction.

[Dejavu]

You can't exploit yourself.

Exactly

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If price signals are allowed to function correctly then any overproduction gets liquidated and the resources go elsewhere for some other production. These markets self-correct, yes, but not immediately, and when you throw in the human face of things the situation becomes more complex. Keynes and Sraffa have talked about this in detail, but the necessary changes needed in the labor market tends to lag when looking at self-correction cycles. Ironically, this time frame where markets are still in the process of correcting opens up opportunities for the political side of our species to intervene - hence why you have demand-side stimulus theories.

The situation back then was even more rigid due to the fact these farmers hadn't dealt with such an issue with the market before. We're talking about 80+ years of just farming the same cash crop and consistently expecting returns. When this suddenly started to fail them, many farmers remained persistent - aided by a cheap supply of black laborers. It took some time for these farmers to pack up and migrate closer to the cities.

The question turns to whether or not a planned economy would better cope with changing industry and needs. I'm a little worried by some users here suggesting that we should just oversupply labor in a dwindling demand situation (more workers creating buggies instead of moving on to cars). A planned economy where scarcity is an issue has to shift labor. I don't see humanity suddenly developing bottom-up, planned structures in only a few decades.

[Dejavu]

I think we will always have to deal with an element of scarcity simply because one thing we know is always scarce is time. Digital software can probably get around this as Gene pointed out with cost free downloads but these are not really material items unless you translate it on to a CD or Ipod which do require real materials to make. Our time only allows us to produce so many material goods. Thus , I don't see how we will completely get around markets but I am optimistic about technology being able to increase the marginal productivity of laborers while simultaneously requiring less material resource use ( think of the size of computer processors now compared to gargantuin mainframes of a few decades ago). In such an instance even if these are allocated via market processes they will be signifantly more accessable to obtain due to falling prices and software will probably go mostly gift.

[GPDP]

I'm no fan of markets, but honestly, how can you exploit yourself in a co-op? Are you taking surplus value from yourself to make profit for yourself? How the hell does that work?

I suppose you could make an argument that a co-op working within a capitalist market, in having to compete with capitalist firms, would be forced to set aside profits that would otherwise go towards the workers' pockets toward advertising and other such extraneous costs that are necessary to stay competitive in the market. So in that sense, one could conceivably argue that in a co-op, workers do not truly gain the full monetary value of their labor. But that's not really exploitation, as the surplus value is not going into the hands of a parasite. Rather, it is being partially allocated toward overall firm maintenance.

So unless we wanna argue the collective co-op entity is exploiting the workers who run it...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm no fan of markets, but honestly, how can you exploit yourself in a co-op? Are you taking surplus value from yourself to make profit for yourself? How the hell does that work?

I suppose you could make an argument that a co-op working within a capitalist market, in having to compete with capitalist firms, would be forced to set aside profits that would otherwise go towards the workers' pockets toward advertising and other such extraneous costs that are necessary to stay competitive in the market. So in that sense, one could conceivably argue that in a co-op, workers do not truly gain the full monetary value of their labor. But that's not really exploitation, as the surplus value is not going into the hands of a parasite. Rather, it is being partially allocated toward overall firm maintenance.

So unless we wanna argue the collective co-op entity is exploiting the workers who run it...

And in a similar way, is it not expected that a communist society would provide for its sick, disabled, pregnant, young, and elderly? Technically that would require "taking" labor value from the worker and giving it to someone else. Value is a complex issue that can't concretely be boxed in.

Are pension plans "exploitive" because of the current workforce losing even more value of its production? No. The real issue is that players in the capitalist market are incapable of having any real control over where their value goes and are forced into hierarchical institutions - both within the market itself (big business) and the site of work (boss).

[Dejavu]

These markets self-correct, yes, but not immediately, and when you throw in the human face of things the situation becomes more complex. Keynes and Sraffa have talked about this in detail, but the necessary changes needed in the labor market tends to lag when looking at self-correction cycles. Ironically, this time frame where markets are still in the process of correcting opens up opportunities for the political side of our species to intervene - hence why you have demand-side stimulus theories.

The situation back then was even more rigid due to the fact these farmers hadn't dealt with such an issue with the market before. We're talking about 80+ years of just farming the same cash crop and consistently expecting returns. When this suddenly started to fail them, many farmers remained persistent - aided by a cheap supply of black laborers. It took some time for these farmers to pack up and migrate closer to the cities.

The question turns to whether or not a planned economy would better cope with changing industry and needs. I'm a little worried by some users here suggesting that we should just oversupply labor in a dwindling demand situation (more workers creating buggies instead of moving on to cars would have stunted innovation). A planned economy where scarcity is an issue has to shift labor.


I agree with most of this. The market can best correct when it is not hampered. But honestly , I don't know who's fault this is since nobody has a crystal ball (unless you believe in that sort of thing) in terms of how successful a venture would be.

Future capital for these failed venturers would be higher risk anyway and they probably would have to change profession and let someone or some people ( workers co-op for example) better do it.

Sraffa and Keynes tended to look at the economy as a circular function (more so Sraffa , I'm talking to a Sraffian on OI right now if you're interested). Also, its hard to measure this in aggregate as it is not true the whole economy spirals when there is a lag of labor in a particular industry. Labor gets reallocated to more productive uses and the failed enterprise has its capital liquidated and recirculated back into the economy. Nor can you measure a predictable cycle with an entire aggregate economy since you are dealing with a multitude of industries and some tend to do better , at least in the short term , when another goes under but tendency towards equilibrium happens once there is the liquidation process.

I believe you are talking about slavery in your next comment and I completely agree. Along with the obvious immorality of it , it was highly inefficient and could not last in competing with highly industrializing competition. Rightfully so , the farmers lost capital. (IMO, I think parcels the rich plantations should've been distributed to the former slaves as their land with additional interest paid to the former slaves, I feel this way about Native Americans left over from the genocide as well.)

Naturally you know I'm going to disagree about the planned economy suggestion but very good posts.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's cool, but I'm actually talking about the postbellum era when "freed" blacks basically performed the exact same duties as before the war - only for 'wages' (if you can call them that).

Slavery is inefficient in terms of innovation, and as an economic model it concentrated wealth much more than contemporary capitalism does, but big plantation owners prior to the Civil War were, generally, wealthier than big industrialists. I'm not sure if it's non-competitive in regards to sheer productive capability. It's hard to tell. :)

[Dejavu]

It's cool, but I'm actually talking about the postbellum area when "freed" blacks basically performed the exact same duties as before the war - only for 'wages' (if you can call them that). :)

Oh yes, serfdom basically. There was a term for it, indentured servants I believe. The slave masters should have had their land expropriated from them and given to the former slaves.


Slavery is inefficient in terms of innovation, and as an economic model it concentrated wealth much more than contemporary capitalism does, but big plantation owners prior to the Civil War were, generally, wealthier than big industrialists. I'm not sure if it's non-competitive in regards to sheer productive capability. It's hard to tell. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif Production as well since it was highly labor intensive to and their marginal productivity lagged far behind laborers with advanced capital. This is one of the reasons the British Empire pretty much phased out chattel slavery. I think 'wealthier' is largely subjective. Perhaps in terms of owning more land but net worth is really measured by net value productivity which would probably be much higher with the industrialists.

[Psy]

I'm no fan of markets, but honestly, how can you exploit yourself in a co-op? Are you taking surplus value from yourself to make profit for yourself? How the hell does that work?

You are taking surplus value from yourself to throw at the market



I suppose you could make an argument that a co-op working within a capitalist market, in having to compete with capitalist firms, would be forced to set aside profits that would otherwise go towards the workers' pockets toward advertising and other such extraneous costs that are necessary to stay competitive in the market. So in that sense, one could conceivably argue that in a co-op, workers do not truly gain the full monetary value of their labor. But that's not really exploitation, as the surplus value is not going into the hands of a parasite. Rather, it is being partially allocated toward overall firm maintenance.

It does, just like how surplus value from petite-bourgeoisie finds its way in the pockets of the bourgeoisie.