local, corporate or who cares

[pierrotlefou]

From a socialist perspective do you feel there is a difference in supporting local businesses over corporate giants or does it not matter? Why?

[Invincible Summer]

In essence, local businesses are petit-bourgeoisie and exploit employees and therefore are hardly any different (except in scale) from corporations. However, I personally think that a shopkeeper trying to make ends meet is much different from a transnational corporation that lays off hundreds of workers every month, and where the CEO/CFO/whomever makes 6 figure salaries and still claims that the company needs to "tighten its belt" or whatever.

But I'll admit I just buy stuff from wherever it's cheaper. I'm a student, goddamnit!

[Delegado J]

I don't have a problem supporting local business as long as they treat their workers fairly, which most of them do. Hell, our local businesses may only have 4 or 5 employees, so it's not really a problem.

Besides, I need to buy my capitalist products somewhere! Might as well choose the lesser of two evils, and I don't go to wal-mart unless I absolutely need to.

[Nwoye]

I think we as leftists should acknowledge that the petty-bourgeoisie or small business owners are at a disadvantage in competing with large-scale capital, and that it is in many cases true that they're sometimes targeted by high tax rates and business regulation (which larger corporations can get out of). I myself try to shop and eat locally/small when possible, but half of that is just cuz it's usually better service. However, what we shouldn't do is make it a part of our political program to liberate the petty-bourgeoisie from state oppression. That means class-collaborationism, and it means abandoning socialist revolution as our ultimate goal.

[which doctor]

I exclusively patronize large, multinational chains because they have are a more advanced mode of distribution.

[Invincible Summer]

I think we as leftists should acknowledge that the petty-bourgeoisie or small business owners are at a disadvantage in competing with large-scale capital, and that it is in many cases true that they're sometimes targeted by high tax rates and business regulation (which larger corporations can get out of). I myself try to shop and eat locally/small when possible, but half of that is just cuz it's usually better service. However, what we shouldn't do is make it a part of our political program to liberate the petty-bourgeoisie from state oppression. That means class-collaborationism, and it means abandoning socialist revolution as our ultimate goal.


But what if the petit-bourgeoisie shopkeeper is a socialist? You can't deny that people will resort to whatever means they can to make ends meet in capitalism. Will you deny their participation in a revolution just due to their category within a Marxist class rubric?

[Nwoye]

But what if the petit-bourgeoisie shopkeeper is a socialist? You can't deny that people will resort to whatever means they can to make ends meet in capitalism. Will you deny their participation in a revolution just due to their category within a Marxist class rubric?
there's a significant difference between including petty-bourgeoisie individuals sympathetic to socialism and incorporating the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie as a class into our program.

[Tablo]

Sometimes the petty-bourgeois business owners actually care about their employees and don't make a significant profit in the long run, but they are still a part of the problem. It is good to recognize they are a lesser evil and we should go to them for our services and products when it is affordable. I by no means will criticize a worker for going to walmart when they can't afford to go anywhere else.

[punisa]

Majority of small shopkeepers and small entrepreneurs are a class that would/will join us in the revolution.
But they have a very hard situation on themselves. Simply because capitalists run them down and (many) socialists still view them as the class enemy.

But we must remember that many businesses are family owned and family run, thus they don't even have workers. So who do they exploit? Themselves?:blink:
An average small entrepreneur today usually works twice as much as an average worker and earns usually the same with one difference. The entrepreneur might easily go in debt and thus become a lifelong slave to the capitalist economy (Marx named this "downwards mobility")

I think genuine small businesses should be supported - as long as they play fair and don't exploit their employees.
Especially as some business owners earn less then their employees do.

In the end - all of us must conform to capitalism up to a certain point, there is no alternative unfortunately.
You endorse capitalism when you open a business, yes. But you also endorse capitalism when you buy products. We all fit into this array.

[The Red Next Door]

It all depends if that small businesses are exploitive or not, i think we should support them especially from big large corporation who products are not American made.but you know what i find funny sometimes is that people who go around calling people anti american shop at places, where the products are Chinese made.

[Floyce White]

Small capitalists are capitalists. About 99% of capitalists are small capitalists.

Some small capitalists are socialists because socialism is a petty-bourgeois movement. The error is for lower-class people to believe the lie that "socialism is communism."

[bailey_187]

Rejecting large scale industry in favour of small individual business is reactionary.

Large scale industry has clear benefits such a economies of scale etc, the point is for our class to take it over and use it in our interests.

[Invincible Summer]

Small capitalists are capitalists. About 99% of capitalists are small capitalists.

Some small capitalists are socialists because socialism is a petty-bourgeois movement. The error is for lower-class people to believe the lie that "socialism is communism."

It really depends on how one defines "socialism."

[Floyce White]

It really depends on how one defines "socialism."

True. You may argue for any definition. However, the history of so-called "existing socialism" practiced by "socialist countries" such as China is an enormous body of fact. It is much easier to argue that anticommunists (such as CPs) deliberately misuse the term "communism." In my Antiproperty essays, I also point out many errors that flow from conflating socialism with communism. No one has yet made even a halfway argument to the contrary, so I'm confident in my position.