Is is hypocritical to own a business?

[06hurdwp]

I am a Marxist. Would it be hypocritical for me to own a private business, even if the only employees are me and a few friends who are all Marxists and the level of exploitation is low, and part of the profits are used to promote Marxism?

[Zav]

Yes it would. You and your friends should turn this business into a worker-owned co-op.

[06hurdwp]

Yes it would. You and your friends should turn this business into a worker-owned co-op.

Well, it kind of is, they each own stakes in the company :/

If you're wondering what type of company it is - it is a solar energy facility supplying electricity to the National Grid :)

[ZrianKobani]

In general I'd say it all depends on how you manage it but if you're a Marxist or Anarchst, I'd say you might have trouble doing it and keeping your ideals though it's good to keep in mind that the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA runs a chain of stores and goes fairly uncriticized for it. I'm a Democratic Socialist and never fully believed in doing away with small business myself. Talk to your friends and you guys vote on it.

[La Peur Rouge]

never fully believed in doing away with small business myself.

Why?

[xub3rn00dlex]

Hmmm, I would say you're doing what you need to survive in the capitalist system in a way, but as a Zav above said, you could turn it into a worker owned co-op.

If you still own this business and a revolution occurs in your lifetime and you are true to your ideals you will know that the ownership of it must go, and will no doubt do the Marxist thing and work to establish that co-op much harder than you would under a capitalist system.

[bcbm]

being a business owner is okay as long as you call yourself a "workers co-op"

[Savage]

Yes it would. You and your friends should turn this business into a worker-owned co-op.

If owning a business made you a hypocrite, then being in a co-op would be no less hypocritical, but since Marxism isn't a lifestyle you don't have to worry that about anyway.

[Dunk]

Should it really matter if it is hypocritical? Hypocrisy doesn't mean you're wrong to be a Marxist, and frankly, if your business is successful you can donate more to whatever revolutionary organization you support.

[ZrianKobani]

Why?

I believe in public ownership of major industry such as food production, energy, steel, medicine, etc. However, I see no reason why a comic shop or a skate shop or something local like that would need to fall under community control.

[Tablo]

I believe in public ownership of major industry such as food production, energy, steel, medicine, etc. However, I see no reason why a comic shop or a skate shop or something local like that would need to fall under community control.
Why shouldn't everything be democratically run by the workers? Why should there be any workplaces where a boss rules over the workers?

Btw, don't be surprised when you get restricted to the OI forum.

[Zav]

being in a co-op would be no less hypocritical
This is untrue. There is a difference between one person owning the capital and everyone who works there owning it. In the latter, ownership is just a legal term to deal with the surrounding Capitalist economy.

[Savage]

This is untrue. There is a difference between one person owning the capital and everyone who works there owning it. In the latter, ownership is just a legal term to deal with the surrounding Capitalist economy.

NOTE: This thread is about the hypocrisy of certain lifestyles, so If you really want a debate on co-ops you should refer to one of the dozens of threads that previously exist on this forum, so as not to derail this thread. I will however go into small detail here.

Nobody 'owns' capital, both the bourgeoisie and and proletariat are it's functionaries, workers cannot 'manage' capital anymore than the bourgeoisie can. Socialism is not a movement to 'democratically' manage capital, if the social relations of capital are not changed then the workers 'management' will just be the capitulation to market laws which will eventually end the co-op anyway.

''Self-management, the running of the enterprise by the workers employed in it, changes only the ownership and management of the enterprise. In capitalist society, where different enterprises operate through market mechanisms as elements of a single social capital, it matters not whether an enterprise is owned privately, or by a joint stock company, or by the state or by its employees. Likewise, whether the management is hierarchical or democratic does not change the enterprise’s nature as an element in capitalist society. Self-management boils down to the proletarians’ self-management of their own exploitation. Worse, as a measure that is often introduced in unprofitable, failing companies, by workers trying to prevent closure and their own unemployment, self-management often entails a higher level of exploitation than a normal business. The workers “freely choose” (under pressure from the market) to work harder for less money, in order to keep the enterprise going. Self-management operates therefore as a weapon of capitalist crisis management. The capitalist nature of self-managed enterprises has not only been demonstrated theoretically, but has been shown in the fact that self-management has been taken up by capitalist groups from time to time.''

Socialism 'in one factory' is as ludicrous as socialism 'in one country', but that is not even the subject, as you don't wish to abolish capital in one factory, you equate socialism with a society based on capital(ism).

[Devrim]

I believe in public ownership of major industry such as food production, energy, steel, medicine, etc. However, I see no reason why a comic shop or a skate shop or something local like that would need to fall under community control.

In a communist world there wouldn't be shops.

Devrim

[ZrianKobani]

Why shouldn't everything be democratically run by the workers? Why should there be any workplaces where a boss rules over the workers?

Btw, don't be surprised when you get restricted to the OI forum.

I'm not opposing worker's control but I think that if someone starts up a small shop and hires say, five people, there's not much reason for the neighborhood to rule in on how that shop is ran.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[human strike]

I am a Marxist. Would it be hypocritical for me to own a private business, even if the only employees are me and a few friends who are all Marxists and the level of exploitation is low, and part of the profits are used to promote Marxism?

Yes.

[ZrianKobani]

In a communist world there wouldn't be shops.

Devrim You and I haven't even got to Socialism yet, how things will work in a Communist society when we haven't even gotten half way there can only be speculatory. Before we can shape the world as we'd like, we must accept that it exists now as it does and work with what we have to do what we can.

[Magón]

I'm not opposing worker's control but I think that if someone starts up a small shop and hires say, five people, there's not much reason for the neighborhood to rule in on how that shop is ran.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I think this is a little miscommunication.

Nobody's saying the whole neighborhood would have to run the skate shop or whatever, but the workers working there, should own the means in which they produce the skateboards and accessories, regardless of who starts it up first or not.

Because without the other five people's help, that person who started it, couldn't do anything with their skate shop.

[ZrianKobani]

I think this is a little miscommunication.

Nobody's saying the whole neighborhood would have to run the skate shop or whatever, but the workers working there, should own the means in which they produce the skateboards and accessories, regardless of who starts it up first or not.

Because without the other five people's help, that person who started it, couldn't do anything with their skate shop.

My conception of Socialism has always been that of neighborhoods democratically controlling the resources necessary for survival and basic government: power, heating, water, crops, police, postal service, etc. should be under direct public control.

I can understand wanting democratic workplaces, my only concern would be in creative control; if I own a shop and I decide that I'd rather sell custom boards instead of stuff from Almost or Girl, I can be out-voted and my idea thrown out. I'm not arguing in favor of capitalism but if someone takes the time and energy to start a business, I think he should at least retain something as his own to show for it.

[Magón]

I can understand wanting democratic workplaces, my only concern would be in creative control; if I own a shop and I decide that I'd rather sell custom boards instead of stuff from Almost or Girl, I can be out-voted and my idea thrown out. I'm not arguing in favor of capitalism but if someone takes the time and energy to start a business, I think he should at least retain something as his own to show for it.

Nobody's saying you couldn't have a business that has a specific goal, like making custom skateboards as you put it. The reasonable outcome would be that you're likely to get people who want a job at a skateboard store, but also want to be creative in skateboard design too, so you share in what designs are best for being sold or whatever, and you work your business like that so everyone has equal say in what custom designs are done.

[The Idler]

Was Engels a hypocrite?

[06hurdwp]

The way I see it is that at the moment we are living in a capitalist world and what must be done must be done to survive. When the world revolution finally happens, I will gladly turn my company over to the state and start living the dream.

[tbasherizer]

Why shouldn't everything be democratically run by the workers? Why should there be any workplaces where a boss rules over the workers?

Btw, don't be surprised when you get restricted to the OI forum.

In before they get the restriction! A small business could be defined as something similar to some newsagents, in that they technically own the enterprise but are its only employee. Sure, they're no longer strictly proletarian, but I don't see such a person getting in the way of the proletarian dictatorship.

The original question reminds me of a hypothetical environmentalist owning a Hummer. The fact of global anthropogenic climate change is true no matter how much the environmentalist may inadvertently ransack the earth. They're just not being a very good environmentalist.

In the same way, someone who acknowledges the truth of dialectical/historical materialism and the eventual establishment of the global proletarian dictatorship and even more eventual abolishment of classes can own a business without making a tangible impact on that historical inevitability. They're just not being a very good Marxist.

I mean, it would go against my ethics to own a business, and if I found myself in that unfortunate situation, I'd try to delegate as many decisions as possible to my workers in a systematic, democratic fashion and try to get as many of them to sign on as founders of a cooperative with me as possible.

[Kamos]

The way I see it is that at the moment we are living in a capitalist world and what must be done must be done to survive. When the world revolution finally happens, I will gladly turn my company over to the state and start living the dream.

If every communist thinks the same, there will be no revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

If every communist thinks the same, there will be no revolution.Sure it will, we're not that important.


I am a Marxist. Would it be hypocritical for me to own a private business, even if the only employees are me and a few friends who are all Marxists and the level of exploitation is low, and part of the profits are used to promote Marxism?No, because Marxism is not a lifestyle.

[Kamos]

Sure it will, we're not that important.

No, because Marxism is not a lifestyle.

Oh come on. Am I the only one who sees something terribly wrong with this?

First of all, "we're not that important". Who? Communists? Commies who own a business? The revolution needs action. You can't have the best of the two worlds - of course, you can live well, have lots of money and still be one of the most valuable commies around, but a business is no longer just about your lifestyle. If we try to do something, but are always careful about it, trying to keep the oppressive business around just in case the revolution fails to have something to fall back upon - of course we can't expect success. That seems obvious to me. When it comes to class struggle, the revolutionary always goes as far as possible - just like reformism in voting, the moderate approach doesn't work here either. This isn't just about business owners, of course, but everyone who is a part of capitalist oppression and wants to stay as part of it "until the revolution".

[tbasherizer]

Oh come on. Am I the only one who sees something terribly wrong with this?

First of all, "we're not that important". Who? Communists? Commies who own a business? The revolution needs action. You can't have the best of the two worlds - of course, you can live well, have lots of money and still be one of the most valuable commies around, but a business is no longer just about your lifestyle. If we try to do something, but are always careful about it, trying to keep the oppressive business around just in case the revolution fails to have something to fall back upon - of course we can't expect success. That seems obvious to me. When it comes to class struggle, the revolutionary always goes as far as possible - just like reformism in voting, the moderate approach doesn't work here either. This isn't just about business owners, of course, but everyone who is a part of capitalist oppression and wants to stay as part of it "until the revolution".

I'm not for selling out by any measure, but to say that the revolution is down to a few people consciously making the choice to fight a revolution to establish a socialist state that would lead to communism is to deny historical materialism. No matter how many people sell out and become businessmen, there will always be a proletarian movement, and at the fore of that movement will be communists(and all the rest of us). There is no denying that historical fact. There is also no denying that the proletarians will win the historic struggle an establish their class dictatorship. Therefore, anyone who becomes a member of the bourgeoisie is just switching to the losing side. Their betrayal might hurt us as individuals, but it doesn't compromise the tide of history that is historical development through class antagonism.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Honestly I don't have much of a problem with leftists starting small businesses under capitalism, it is just another means of surviving. We are all promoting wage slavery every morning when we go into work anyway.

And seriously? Providing energy to the national grid? It's not even like there is much work involved, occasional maintenance of the solar panels and wind turbines but that's about it, right? We're basically talking about a few friends pitching in to install some clean energy devices and then splitting the profits between them...I don't see what the problem is, unless we're against working class people making money now.

[06hurdwp]

Honestly I don't have much of a problem with leftists starting small businesses under capitalism, it is just another means of surviving. We are all promoting wage slavery every morning when we go into work anyway.

And seriously? Providing energy to the national grid? It's not even like there is much work involved, occasional maintenance of the solar panels and wind turbines but that's about it, right? We're basically talking about a few friends pitching in to install some clean energy devices and then splitting the profits between them...I don't see what the problem is, unless we're against working class people making money now.

Thanks, you've pretty much taken the word's straight out of my mouth. Why should it matter what your job is before the revolution? Marx and Engels were both rich yet they are now loved by Communists...

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well in terms of money, Marx was up and down throughout his life, for quite some time he was actually very poor and had to live off other peoples' money. But yes Engels was basically a capitalist.

It's not just Marxists either, some early utopian socialists were capitalists too, probably the most prominent would be Robert Owen who owned a number of factories

[Decolonize The Left]

Oh come on. Am I the only one who sees something terribly wrong with this?

First of all, "we're not that important". Who? Communists? Commies who own a business? The revolution needs action. You can't have the best of the two worlds - of course, you can live well, have lots of money and still be one of the most valuable commies around, but a business is no longer just about your lifestyle. If we try to do something, but are always careful about it, trying to keep the oppressive business around just in case the revolution fails to have something to fall back upon - of course we can't expect success. That seems obvious to me. When it comes to class struggle, the revolutionary always goes as far as possible - just like reformism in voting, the moderate approach doesn't work here either. This isn't just about business owners, of course, but everyone who is a part of capitalist oppression and wants to stay as part of it "until the revolution".

Well this is a bunch of nonsense.

"The revolutionary always goes as far as possible."
Sorry, but this is blatantly not true. For if it were, you'd be writing this from prison as you went "as far as possible" and were subsequently arrested and/or killed.

ZN's point was that Marxism isn't a lifestyle, it's an economic analysis of the current capitalist system and a proposed evolution from this system. So you can own a business because we (Marxists) aren't here to tell you what you can or cannot do. We are here to raise class consciousness and survive.
His second point that we aren't that important is also true for the working class as a whole will enact the revolution due to necessity, not the 'communists' because we know it's right.

- August

[Dr Mindbender]

i think some businesses are more complicit in the most negative aspects of capitalism than others. Large warehouse style operations, fast food chains and call centres dehumanise and perpetuate low paid underskilled roles that serve nothing but the elite and the scarcity system.

Progressives in general should become actively involved and support small to medium scale operations that put greater emphasis on workers autonomy, skills and ambitions.

[Decommissioner]

I would say largely no.

I owned a music venue with friends for a while. We were all co owners and we did not exploit labor. Even if you were to have wage workers, although I personally would have qualms with that, like someone said earlier marxism is not a lifestyle.

To those who say "no" without really specifying why, I ask you this: If a worker could actually make a better living by owning a small business and not being under constant threat of termination working for a boss, would you oppose them making that jump? What about a self-proclaimed marxist? I think it silly to assume to be a marxist or anarchist means to be a laborer by default. Whether or not you remain a proletarian is a different debate and wholly an irrelevant matter.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My two cents:

Every revolution needs money.This business could provide capital while simultaneously providing a safe haven for people during any potential workers uprising.Donate generously to revolutionary organizations and be sure to have your workers have control.