Could objection to socialism stem from growth of small business owners?

[RadioRaheem84]

Marx lived in a time when the means of production were pretty much inherited from one class to the other; the feudal to the bourgeoisie. Today though that seems less like an argument to promote the overthrow of capitalism as the growth of small business owners has grown exponentially. I think that most people in the Western world think of a small business owning relative or how their dream is own a business, which is why they object to the idea of workers storming in to take over one's business. They don't see the owners as having inherited the means of production from a former class. Maybe at the top it's true but if you take over all the businesses then you likewise take over the smaller businesses that had nothing to do with the inheritance from two centuries ago. Granted this doesn't change the dynamics of anything, a business still exploits its workers, but is the working class connection to the petit-bourgeois what keeps many people remaining liberal and reformist rather than revolutionary?

[chegitz guevara]

No

[The Vegan Marxist]

No

Mind explaining the reason behind why you think it does not prevent a person from gaining revolutionary thought?

[Invincible Summer]

Marx lived in a time when the means of production were pretty much inherited from one class to the other; the feudal to the bourgeoisie. Today though that seems less like an argument to promote the overthrow of capitalism as the growth of small business owners has grown exponentially. I think that most people in the Western world think of a small business owning relative or how their dream is own a business, which is why they object to the idea of workers storming in to take over one's business. They don't see the owners as having inherited the means of production from a former class. Maybe at the top it's true but if you take over all the businesses then you likewise take over the smaller businesses that had nothing to do with the inheritance from two centuries ago.
Granted this doesn't change the dynamics of anything, a business still exploits its workers, but is the working class connection to the petit-bourgeois what keeps many people remaining liberal and reformist rather than revolutionary?

I think this phenomenon of growing small business may be a predominantly Western one, as more and more industrial labour is transferred to developing nations, and Western nations have growing service industries.

Nevertheless, I think you may have a point that people think of their small business-owning relative or friend, and therefore overthrowing the bourgeoisie and such rhetoric is frightening.
As opposed to a monolithic, faceless corporation, it's Bill who owns the hardware store or whatever. A potentially forceful revolution against one's "neighbour" is possibly seen as unattractive.

[Robocommie]

I think the small business owner is treading water really, in an age of department stores, a small shop can only survive by appealing to a niche market.

Frankly, I think a lot of people, at least Americans, when they think of revolution and destruction of the old capitalist system, they picture nothing but firing squads and mass graves and Communist death squads hounding the guy who used to own the local bar and grill and the like. It's an inherently unpleasant image that's been saddled onto socialism.

[chegitz guevara]

Mind explaining the reason behind why you think it does not prevent a person from gaining revolutionary thought?

Whoops! Missed the word "objection." http://static.apolyton.net/forums/images/smilies/debatinwitdornan.gif

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, it is the rise of unproductive labour that has fed "libertarian" objections to socialism. This unproductive labour can be traced not to small business owners, but the self-employed.

[vyborg]

Rosa Luxemburg replied marvelously to these ideas in "Social reform or revolution?". I advise any comrade to read this great book

[RadioRaheem84]

This unproductive labour can be traced not to small business owners, but the self-employed.

Very true. But do not these self employed individuals consider themselves small business owners?

[Robocommie]

I guess we could use some definition of terms, I mean, what is self-employed, and what is meant by "small business"?

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of self employed people consider themselves, small business owners. Small business owners consider themselves the staple of a capitalist society, more so than the big corporations. They view them as state suckling parasites but should be defended over the alternative; worker control (which they twist around to mean state control) or nationalization.

The premise of my post was that many people do not see the connection of the owners of the means of production as direct inheritors of the former feudal class. A lot of time has passed and workers have moved their way up to being owners of business themselves. That is the essence of the American dream and the uniqueness which most Americans base the nations exceptionalism in. They view these people as hard workers, who built themselves up from nothing and made something of themselves, created something ingenious and they view us as the lazy workers that want to take that away from them.

The usual objection to our cause is, "my dad worked twelve hour days until he was able to save up his money and start up his own business, and you're telling me that he has to hand it over to some of the lazy workers (Mexicans) he employs" ?

This thought is pervasive among the youth, the working class and especially the middle class above all. They take it as an insult to their relatives who own businesses and their small business employer who may treat them nicely. It is also a point from which bourgeoisie economists start from when examining our theory of classes and denying that they exist in this society. They use the self made man as an example of anyone having the opportunity to defy class struggle.

The connection people have to the petit-bourgeoisie in this country is a strong detriment to our movement, and is a good reason why so many people just consider socialism or desire for socialism to just mean reformist welfare state.

[eyedrop]

America is not the internationally competitive land of small businesses that politicians love to tout (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/13/us-economy-healthcare-productivity)

I good article (Guardian) originally posted by Gravedigger/Jimmy Higgins.

How much of US' population may believe they are a nation of small businesses is a differing thing.

[Dermezel]

If the Centralization of the economy began to reverse that would be an economic breakthrough that would allow for all forms of various types of governments/economic systems while remaining utilitarian.

There is no data to my knowledge that indicates anything but increased centralization however.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Very true. But do not these self employed individuals consider themselves small business owners?

Yes. The main difference between the two, of course, is that the latter group actually invests capital. The former, while they may have small-scale means of production like personal laptops (or Joe the Plumber's tools :rolleyes: ), don't invest capital (renting or leasing buildings, machinery, etc.). Only the latter can "innovate" re. new products... because of the labour market available to exploit.

I also say that I don't agree with the traditional Marxist notion that the self-employed "exploit themselves." Such activity is more than offset by their tax evasions (yeah, even small business owners aren't as prone to doing this shit) and their price gouging, not to mention the fact that when they've reached a certain level of economic stability, they don't work as many hours as minimum-wage, multiple-job working poor.

[Robocommie]

Where do doctors, dentists, lawyers, the professional class which doesn't produce commodities, fall into?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where do doctors, dentists, lawyers, the professional class which doesn't produce commodities, fall into?

Doctors: depends on whether they own their own general practice businesses or not. If they do, they're petit-bourgeois. If they don't but coordinate the work of nurse staff, they're coordinators. If they're hired hands and don't coordinate the work of nurse staff, they're workers.

Dentists: ditto

Lawyers: Unlike doctors, lawyer work is unproductive. It doesn't enter the workers' consumption bundle, and all they're in it for are lawyer fees from litigation successes and other legal services.

"Professional class which doesn't produce commodities": Excuse me? Consumer services are just as much a commodity as physical products. Teachers, engineers, staff accountants, etc. are professional workers.

[Robocommie]

"Professional class which doesn't produce commodities": Excuse me? Consumer services are just as much a commodity as physical products. Teachers, engineers, staff accountants, etc. are professional workers.

Okay, relax. I didn't know how to phrase it, you don't need to take it personally.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I didn't take it personally at all. That question was honest and not to be intended to be sarcastic.

[Robocommie]

I didn't take it personally at all. That question was honest and not to be intended to be sarcastic.

Ah fair enough, I read the "excuse me?" bit and I kindof interpreted that as a mark of offense. Difficulties in trying to infer tone on the internet. ;)

[turquino]

"Professional class which doesn't produce commodities": Excuse me? Consumer services are just as much a commodity as physical products. Teachers, engineers, staff accountants, etc. are professional workers.
No, “a commodity is an external object which through its qualities satisfies needs of whatever kind.” (Marx, Capital Volume I, 125) & “Usefulness is conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity.” (126) [italics mine] And that’s just from the opening pages of the first chapter! Marx repeatedly makes it clear that ONLY physical objects can be commodities and have labour values.

Doctors, dentists, accountants, etc. are not involved in commodity production (the rearrangement of material to create new uses), and therefore cannot be productive workers. They don’t create any new value in the economy, and are paid out of the value produced by others instead.

[RadioRaheem84]

So cleaning ladies aren't being exploited for their labor?

I want this explained because I did have difficulty explaining to my gf how her work as a mail clerk was exploitative. Any help?

[turquino]

So cleaning ladies aren't being exploited for their labor?
In one sense, no. A cleaning lady who cleans private homes does not produce surplus value. However, a cleaning lady who cleans abattoir floors does because she is part of the production process of the commodity pork.

[RadioRaheem84]

ah. and a mail clerk?

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, “a commodity is an external object which through its qualities satisfies needs of whatever kind.” (Marx, Capital Volume I, 125) & “Usefulness is conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity.” (126) [italics mine] And that’s just from the opening pages of the first chapter! Marx repeatedly makes it clear that ONLY physical objects can be commodities and have labour values.

Doctors, dentists, accountants, etc. are not involved in commodity production (the rearrangement of material to create new uses), and therefore cannot be productive workers. They don’t create any new value in the economy, and are paid out of the value produced by others instead.


So cleaning ladies aren't being exploited for their labor?

I want this explained because I did have difficulty explaining to my gf how her work as a mail clerk was exploitative. Any help?

Marx had a change of analysis when drafting Volume III. There, he considered janitors in the factories.

Radio, turquino's position is one of sectoral chauvinism biased towards manual workers. From there, you head down towards Maoist Third Worldism.

I think I already sent you the paper "Hunting Productive Work."

As for your specific question, "cleaning ladies" should be distinguished between those working for cleaning companies and mere petty housemaids. The latter are indeed unproductive, just as butlers are, since they have no employers investing in their service (from which surplus value can be derived).

[turquino]

Marx had a change of analysis when drafting Volume III. There, he considered janitors in the factories.
How so? When did Marx discard his own theories of commodity and value? As I mentioned previously, janitors might be productive if they are part of the production process (like on a factory floor), but a janitor whose duty it is to clean his boss’s office or wash windows is not.

ah. and a mail clerk?
Mail clerks are not technically exploited. Their services are useful to the capitalist, but they aren’t involved in commodity production. They are what Marx would call the ‘faux frais of production’.

[RadioRaheem84]

‘faux frais of production’.

:blink:

[Dermezel]

Mail clerks are not technically exploited. Their services are useful to the capitalist, but they aren’t involved in commodity production. They are what Marx would call the ‘faux frais of production’.

They are still exploited in the sense that they add surplus value to the overall economy but do not receive an equivalent share of the value they add.