Under Socialism who owns the small businesses can they be privately owned ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Under Socialism who owns the small businesses can they be privately owned ?

[jake williams]

Short answer, no.

The means of production - big and small - are collectively owned by the whole working class, or in classless social societies, by everyone. That said, in practice it's very likely that in some cases the main decisions about the use of certain small concentrations of productive resources will be made by a few or even a single person. That is, there may well be people who do many similar things as some small businesspeople in capitalist societies, but they won't privately own the businesses in the same way one would in a capitalist society.

[Ned Kelly]

In a short term sense, I think it is practical for the state not to be running milk bars, corner shops..etc.

[RGacky3]

I would say that industries that are nationally important would be publicly owned, ones that impact a whole city would be owned by the city. Smaller buisinesses imo could very well be cooperatives or even sole propriatorships within Socialism, imo there is nothing un socialistic about that.

Id even say that the majority of buisineses would be cooperatives or sole propriatorships, while hte major large industries are publically controlled.

[RGacky3]

A good example of something like this is the Tine or Nortura in Norway, these are large farming cooperatives, the farms are privately run by individual farmers, but the processing and distribution companies (which require large scale productoin and organiztion) are run by a large cooperative.

Or for example the vin monopol, a publicly owned company, which buys from private producers.

[hatzel]

In a short term sense, I think it is practical for the state not to be running milk bars, corner shops..etc.

Personally I'd much rather the State not run anything :tt2:

[jake williams]

In a short term sense, I think it is practical for the state not to be running milk bars, corner shops..etc.
Ok, but in the short term we're going to have capitalism. That's not the point. Socialism means that workers collectively own the means of production and their private ownership is abolished. This is obviously incompatible with the private ownership of "small businesses" in any sense beyond a metaphorical one.

[RGacky3]

You can have non-state cooperatives and sole propriotorships easily under socialism.

[tbasherizer]

The definition of "small business" is very shifty. People often use the term very differently. I've heard places that employ up to a hundred people called "small business", and I think it's ridiculous. The only "small business" I could tolerate isn't really a business at all, but an artisan-like worker. That is, someone who is their only employee. All other operations should, in the ideal world of the hypothetical, be brought under the control of their employees, or where they are lacking the empowerment/resources/coordination, the temporary stewardship of the state.

[Nox]

I'm sure sole traders would be allowed to run a business, e.g. electricians, plumbers because they aren't exploiting anyone seeing as they're working on their own.

And co-operative small shops would be a nice idea too, there's only so much that the government can do, there will always be gaps that the people themselves can fill without exploitation.

[ComradeMan]

I'm sure sole traders would be allowed to run a business, e.g. electricians, plumbers because they aren't exploiting anyone seeing as they're working on their own.

and they own their own means of production in a sense....

It's a problematic area though.

[RGacky3]

You don't need any special capitalist property laws for them, so its not really capitalist ownership.

[RichardAWilson]

I think small businesses should be allowed to operate as private enterprise, as long as they're made to adhere to socialized labor and environmental standards.

[robbo203]

Under Socialism who owns the small businesses can they be privately owned ?

The notion of a "business" in the sense of en entity whose purpose is to produce commodities for sale on a market will simply cease to exist. Socialism is not a reorganised form of capitalism; it is a completely different mode of production altogether

[RichardAWilson]

Socialism is the transition to Communism. Certain laws of capitalism will be retained during the transition. (I.e. Where in the Communist Manifesto do you see a demand for nationalizing smaller businesses?) Even Lenin and Mao allowed limited enterprise.

[Baseball]

I think small businesses should be allowed to operate as private enterprise, as long as they're made to adhere to socialized labor and environmental standards.


OK. So this means what exactly? They could hire labor for wages? Set their own prices? Are they allowed to compete with their community owned and managed counterparts?

And on a larger issue, does the revleft really want Mao or Lenin as the posterchildren for these sorts of arrangements?
How about Raoul Castro? Does his efforts in this regard considered a step forward, or a step backward for the worldwide socialist/communist effort?

[RGacky3]

And on a larger issue, does the revleft really want Mao or Lenin as the posterchildren for these sorts of arrangements?

No


How about Raoul Castro? Does his efforts in this regard considered a step forward, or a step backward for the worldwide socialist/communist effort?

There are different opinions


OK. So this means what exactly? They could hire labor for wages? Set their own prices? Are they allowed to compete with their community owned and managed counterparts?


It depends on what they decide democratically, the point is that any property is democratically accountable.

[AnonymousOne]

Under Socialism who owns the small businesses can they be privately owned ?

Depends on what version of socialism you subscribe to. For example, Mutualists believe that you can have an individual own a means of production so long as they don't expropriate or buy the wage labor of others. For example, a small artisan or craftsman would have tools for his occupation, but a factory would be owned collectively. If you like the first idea better, you may like the writings of Proudhon.

Most people however, subscribe to the idea that all of the means of production will be seized and held in common ownership.

[gendoikari]

Actually yes, it is possible to own your own business, however once you get past two or three employees total all bets are off depending on what branch of socialism your talking about.