Collectivising All Businesses

[PoliticalNightmare]

So to have true communism, all the means of production need to be completely autonomous, correct? But how does one go about collectivising the businesses whose owners do not want their trade run by society? Presumably with larger businesses we would throw out the owners using force? But there are plenty of smaller businesses, I'm thinking shops, pubs, restaurants, etc.

So how exactly does this work? How did the anarchists go about it in 1936 Spain?

Cheers.

[Zanthorus]

So to have true communism, all the means of production need to be completely autonomous, correct?

I'm not quite sure what 'autonomous' means, but if it means what I think it means, i.e that each enterprise makes and executes decisions independently of each other, then such a structure would require the use of a market mechanism. For 'true communism' to exist, all of society must perform production according to a common plan.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'm not quite sure what 'autonomous' means, but if it means what I think it means, i.e that each enterprise makes and executes decisions independently of each other, then such a structure would require the use of a market mechanism. For 'true communism' to exist, all of society must perform production according to a common plan.

Autonomous means self managed. So we want the businesses to be run by the workers. I just wanted to use a fancy word :)

[ckaihatsu]

Autonomous means self managed. So we want the businesses to be run by the workers. I just wanted to use a fancy word :)





I'm not quite sure what 'autonomous' means, but if it means what I think it means, i.e that each enterprise makes and executes decisions independently of each other, then such a structure would require the use of a market mechanism. For 'true communism' to exist, all of society must perform production according to a common plan.


I'd like to interject some complexity theory here and note that we shouldn't feel constrained to either some kind of shopkeeper-based, overly small-scale, market-chaos kind of conceptualization, nor should we feel constrained to some kind of Big Brother, Stalinistic, top-down bureaucratic planning concept either.

In between the two extremes lies a terrain of planning that could be very bottom-up while also feeding back the larger picture and more-topical themes going on, as the daily news does today (albeit bourgeois). Liberated co-workers / co-administrators -- (which would be everyone's basic role, essentially) -- could get a feel for their local scene, and adjust small-scale infrastructure accordingly, while also being mindful of larger developments playing out that they heard in the news, on the net, etc. Larger groupings could coalesce and collectively decide to address larger-scale concerns in a bottom-up way. This could be for transportation projects, or maybe bringing new work positions into existence to respond to additional health care needs, or for progressive scientific research, etc.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'd like to interject some complexity theory here and note that we shouldn't feel constrained to either some kind of shopkeeper-based, overly small-scale, market-chaos kind of conceptualization, nor should we feel constrained to some kind of Big Brother, Stalinistic, top-down bureaucratic planning concept either.

In between the two extremes lies a terrain of planning that could be very bottom-up while also feeding back the larger picture and more-topical themes going on, as the daily news does today (albeit bourgeois). Liberated co-workers / co-administrators -- (which would be everyone's basic role, essentially) -- could get a feel for their local scene, and adjust small-scale infrastructure accordingly, while also being mindful of larger developments playing out that they heard in the news, on the net, etc. Larger groupings could coalesce and collectively decide to address larger-scale concerns in a bottom-up way. This could be for transportation projects, or maybe bringing new work positions into existence to respond to additional health care needs, or for progressive scientific research, etc.

So you are advocating some sort of system where, during/post revolution where there are organised workers' collectives co-operating with smaller, privatised businesses (e.g. shopes, pubs, etc.) What then? Do the smaller businesses just slowly declare themselves collectivised voluntarily?

What about the big business owners? Do they get overthrown?

[ckaihatsu]

So you are advocating some sort of system where, during/post revolution where there are organised workers' collectives co-operating with smaller, privatised businesses (e.g. shopes, pubs, etc.) What then? Do the smaller businesses just slowly declare themselves collectivised voluntarily?

What about the big business owners? Do they get overthrown?


Thanks for the question -- I can see that this is worth clarifying....

I mean for the context here to be entirely post-capitalism, so there would be no reason to retain any remnants of private ownership whatsoever. My intent was only to address issues pertaining to the various *scales* of collectivized operations. So, politically, this would all be a collectively planned political economy.

In terms of specifics I have a model completed, at my blog entry, that talks to what kinds of *procedures* could be realistically implemented to put all of this in motion.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Thanks for the question -- I can see that this is worth clarifying....

I mean for the context here to be entirely post-capitalism, so there would be no reason to retain any remnants of private ownership whatsoever. My intent was only to address issues pertaining to the various *scales* of collectivized operations. So, politically, this would all be a collectively planned political economy.

In terms of specifics I have a model completed, at my blog entry, that talks to what kinds of *procedures* could be realistically implemented to put all of this in motion.

Perhaps I have not been completely clear in phrasing my words.

My original question was how does one go about collectivising the businesses that don't want it.

[Ocean Seal]

I think that this is an interesting question. I've had it for a while as well. What is to be done about businesses where the only employee is the owner. Or it is the owner plus a few employees (some of which might be family). I think that we should support the people owning the means of production hence splitting the earning around effort rather than ownership. Yet at the same time making a persuasive argument for small businesses (restaurants/small shops not the bs <5 million a year more like those who make under 80k a year) to be on our side. Something like the freedom from big business that would allow each of the people who owns a small shop to make more under a socialist programme. They wouldn't be owning the shop (it would be under collective ownership), but they would be getting the pay that comes out of their own effort just like what should happen under socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps I have not been completely clear in phrasing my words.

My original question was how does one go about collectivising the businesses that don't want it.


Small businesses, like the ones described by RedBrother in the post following yours, are in a kind of middling position in the context of the overall economy. Small businesses are often seen as being more visible and personable than the rest of the economy and are often played to as a kind of economic "swing vote" by politicians. But, economically, they're usually just a step up from a single proprietor business or "self-employed" individual.

So from our political standpoint there shouldn't be much of a concern about the *logistics* of such enterprises in a post-capitalist environment. Neighborhood restaurants, etc., are dependent on larger vendors for their supplies -- in practice we could think of them as being like very large, temporized families -- and so, materially, are more-or-less in the same position as any other family or small grouping.

I'd go so far as to say that there should be no cause for concern about retaining the traditions or cultures therein -- again, these enterprises are so small-scale that they're almost akin to clubs. An overall collectivized planned economy would be tasked with providing appropriate dispensations for the human needs (and basic wants) of our contemporary society, going forward -- it would not be in the least bit complicated to "upgrade" the underlying political economy, to socialism, while keeping the overall civilization's culture more or less intact, if that's what people want.





I think that this is an interesting question. I've had it for a while as well. What is to be done about businesses where the only employee is the owner. Or it is the owner plus a few employees (some of which might be family). I think that we should support the people owning the means of production hence splitting the earning around effort rather than ownership. Yet at the same time making a persuasive argument for small businesses (restaurants/small shops not the bs <5 million a year more like those who make under 80k a year) to be on our side. Something like the freedom from big business that would allow each of the people who owns a small shop to make more under a socialist programme. They wouldn't be owning the shop (it would be under collective ownership), but they would be getting the pay that comes out of their own effort just like what should happen under socialism.


Recently I've become more conscious and critical of "soft collectivism" (my wording) -- allusions to some form or portions of market socialism, basically. If full-scale collectivism is what's called for I don't think we should hedge against that by recalling "past" practices of pay, wages, material compensation for efforts according to ratios, etc. In short the point is that there can be *no* pegged correlation between collectivized work input and the collectivized output of that same society. To attempt to establish such a formalization, as through a ratio, would invite more complications and chaos than it would be worth. (We have only to look at the insanities in the present-day economic realm for examples of this.)

In the beginning of a collectivized planned socialist political economy there would be more than adequate supplies -- from an initial core group of so-motivated revolutionary workers to spur a societal collectivized, automated production -- for everyone to satisfy their basic requirements for living without any return obligation to the larger society. On that basis such liberated people would encounter the threshold of free, unobligated personal time. And, on *that* basis the liberated people would be equipped for entirely self-selected, unobligated participation in the planned political economy. This could take the form of continuing to run (co-administrate) their conventional "businesses", but in a post-capitalist environment their functional activity would be more in the form of social-political service, along with others, rather than holed up in a back room looking over the books.

All liberated workers and non-workers would *not* be dependent on their work status for securing the basics of human life and livelihood. Greater material efforts towards the larger collectivized society would build greater scales of societal complexity, development, and advancement -- the details for dealing with such varying and increasing quantities of liberated work input can be formalized into institutional-like societal *procedures*, if so adopted by the masses. I developed a model that addresses this purpose, at my blog entry.