what would happen to me?

[papito]

Hi,

I've enjoyed lurking on this forum for a while, although I disagree with a fair amount of what I read, I none the less admire people who are passionate about something.

It did get me wondering however, what my fate would be if YOU got your desired revolution. If you are going to indulge me with an answer then you need a few details:

I own my own small business, just 3 employees, it's not particularly profitable but I make a living and hope to grow it so that it supports me and my family to have a better life. I am hands on at work and do the same amount of physical work my employees do, but much longer hours, sometimes they earn more, sometimes I do. I rent the land we occupy and started it myself with very little capital (less than £5k)

My personal politics should matter I guess so I won't go in to them.

[tuwix]

Your "small business" would be transformed into cooperative where all decisions will be made by majority of workers including you if you work there and not only live of profits from people working there.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What kind of industry do you work in?

[#FF0000]

You wouldn't own that thing anymore, for sure.

[Fourth Internationalist]

At first, nothing if you so choose. However, eventually your business would naturally become a part of the socialist system (you will a. See the benefits of the socialist system and join in b. With everything else socialised, it'd be impossible to run a business c. You die of old age and your employees socialise it) Thus, it would be operated by all the workers there and owned by society as a whole. Production in your [no longer yours nor events a] business would be used for direct usage by everyone in society.

[connoros]

This is a little more complicated than simply asking what would happen to your business is socialism just all of a sudden happened. A revolution implies that the state is being seized by the proletariat and would continue to exist for as long as was necessary to resist pressure to restore capitalism from what bourgeois persist elsewhere. I figure, after a socialist revolution, provided your home community hasn't been mutilated by conflict, not much of your daily life would really change at all. You'd go to work and work as you do, but there may be the added elements of central planning mandates and the pressures of worker democracy on management.

[Hiero]

At first, nothing if you so choose. However, eventually your business would naturally become a part of the socialist system (you will a. See the benefits of the socialist system and join in b. With everything else socialised, it'd be impossible to run a business c. You die of old age and your employees socialise it) Thus, it would be operated by all the workers there and owned by society as a whole. Production in your [no longer yours nor events a] business would be used for direct usage by everyone in society.

And what if he resists?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, since you have a small shop, I doubt that they would occupy your business and take it over... they might just stop working, or they might start having different expectations for how arrangments on the job should work out.

As far as what people in the worker's movement might do in an immediate sense in a revolutionary situation - that would probably depend on what your business does or what your orientation to the worker's movement is. (And we're talking about a massive democratic growndswell sort of situation where there can be no set predictions - only guesses based on history.) So if you own a company doing some kind of support for profit-making, like a small legal firm or a small ad company, then the service might simply be redundant and obsolete. If you own a small shop that provides a service, like a resturant or whatnot, then you will most likely have to decide in a polarized situation about what side you stand on, do you support the surging worker's rebellion, or do you want that to be pushed back and things to go back to normal, do you activly help thugs who are breaking pickets, or do you help the movement and so on. If someone is helping reactionaries, providing them support or places to organize, then it would be in the best interests of the movement to shut them down. Otherwise, I think workers will probably want small owners or middle class professionals - at least sections of them - to support the worker's movement and so if someone runs their own family resturant or whatnot, then I doubt there would be the reason or really the practical means to "sieze" it. Most likely you would loose other employees just due to them having other options that are better than working for someone else, but I'd guess that workers would allow shops friendly to the new rule by workers to continue. You probably would not be able to pass that shop down to your children, but on the bright side you wouldn't have to pay rents since I'm 99.99% confident that one of the very first things that workers would do in most countries is abolish rent and debt within the first few minutes of a revolution (some of this would simply abolish itself as people just stopped paying rent as landlords loose their ability to enforce this - i.e. the police).

So if you dreamed of having a francize of shops or becoming the richest shop in town, or wanting to start a family dynasty... well those dreams would be crushed, but in the long run I'd imagine you'd have a more stable and better life under worker's rule than under capitalist rule.

In a system of profits, a small shop is also under other powers, the power of rent, market forces, the influence of big-business in government, the influence of big-business to set market terms, etc. If your small business is as unprofitable as you say, then you may not have to fear that worker's rule to take that away, since capitalist rule does a pretty agressive job at shuddering small mom and pop stores and allowing the big fish to eat all the little fish. On top of not really having much influence in the conditions of the market, capitalism also has other effects on you as well like the possibility of large-scale industrial war, environmental destruction, or just throwing so many people out of work and in desperate or even just bland situations that people go crazy around you.

I don't know if worker's will want to take your business (small businesses are sort of incidental to the overall "means of production" in a determining sense) but I know for a fact that all your competators in capitalism today want to take what you have.

[Fourth Internationalist]

And what if he resists?

Nothing, as I said. It would be impossible for him to keep the business from being socialised forever for all the reasons I stated in parenthesises.

[MarxArchist]

Hi,

I've enjoyed lurking on this forum for a while, although I disagree with a fair amount of what I read, I none the less admire people who are passionate about something.

It did get me wondering however, what my fate would be if YOU got your desired revolution. If you are going to indulge me with an answer then you need a few details:

I own my own small business, just 3 employees, it's not particularly profitable but I make a living and hope to grow it so that it supports me and my family to have a better life. I am hands on at work and do the same amount of physical work my employees do, but much longer hours, sometimes they earn more, sometimes I do. I rent the land we occupy and started it myself with very little capital (less than £5k)

My personal politics should matter I guess so I won't go in to them.


Given the choice your employees would most likely not work for you anymore and you'd be left producing things by yourself and you could then trade what you made with your own two hands but wealth accumulation, for you, would be impossible. What would generally happen though, under communism, is no huge population of dispossessed people would be forced into wage labor, rent and paying interest so these things simply couldn't function on any meaningful scale. Unless you put a gun to someones head but that's what the institution of private property does for you now. Without it you'd have to physically force people to work for you. Try that in a communist society and I'm sure you'd get various negative reactions but many people would simply laugh at you.

[Sasha]

verbal warning to all the people attempting to be "funny", knock it off or infractions will follow, trashed the lot...

[3dward]

This is an interesting question as it is something that happened in Cuba. In 1959, at the beginning of the revolution, there were thousands of small bussines as he described above. They coexisted with social socialist property until 1968, when the government decided to launch the so-called “Ofensiva Revolucionaria” (Revolutionary Offensive) which literally swept them all, assimilating it into the social socialist property. This was the beginning of a period of radicalization of the revolution, which translated into the creation of forced labor camps (called UMAP´s), an state supported intolerance to religion, homosexuality and any kind of thinking that diverted from the official ideology. Then, many years later (50 years actually), the government realized that this was as mistake and now they are trying to repair it. Recently, the parliament of my country approved a law authorizing the existence of small business and non-state cooperatives, seeking new ways to paliate our difficult economical situation.
So, the answer to the question above, what would happen to me? That my friend, depends of how radical ur government would be. But, from a theoretical point of view, at least in the initial stages of the revolution, small bussines doesn´t posses a threat to the social socialist property which tends to concentrate around the fundamental means of production (big factories, electrical plants, transport, etc). I think that a future socialist revolution would take this historical experience into consideration and realize how wrong is to assimilate small capitalist property when there´s no need to.

[ckaihatsu]

Otherwise, I think workers will probably want small owners or middle class professionals - at least sections of them - to support the worker's movement and so if someone runs their own family resturant or whatnot, then I doubt there would be the reason or really the practical means to "sieze" it. Most likely you would loose other employees just due to them having other options that are better than working for someone else, but I'd guess that workers would allow shops friendly to the new rule by workers to continue.


As a sidenote I also wonder if the customer-service segment of the service sector would continue to exist, post-revolution. A self-liberated global workforce might find the whole idea of waiting on others to just be a relic from the bygone days of the feudal aristocracy, a practice which is unfortunately continued *these* days under the market regime.

In other words, all meaningful material items could be mass distributed, with automated mechanistics (think of the luggage conveyor belt at an airport) subdividing quantities down to the individual level, to the end user.

With all material concerns fully automated everyone would be freed to engage in social interactions that are either entirely socially productive, or else are solely personal.


The democratization of power...

http://s6.postimage.org/t69cczjvx/120702_The_democratization_of_power.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/t69cczjvx/)

[papito]

What kind of industry do you work in?

Vehicle dismantling mainly, some cars we repair and sell on, others just sell the parts.

[papito]

That's a very good answer, thank you. It is true that in our current system the bigger fish have the deck well stacked in their favour, one my biggest financial leaks is compliance with all the environmental and legal requirements (I run a scrap yard). The big boys can afford to have someone full time and they gain economies of scale. On the other hand I also have to compete with people who break Cars on their drive and can sell parts for much less.
I don't hold dreams of grandeur, just want to provide and enjoy this short life. It is a sad system we have because I'm missing my kids growing up in order to provide not just the basics but the consumer junk that assuages my guilt for not being there more.
For what it matters I hate the consumer society, I think we've gone way wrong as a people. Only thing is I've never been much good at following orders, always preferred to do my own thing, I don't think I'd fare much better in a socialist paradise.

[papito]

I'm a little unfamiliar with these boards, when I said good answer I was referring to Jimmie Higgens, not that the others were not marvellous. I would like to know what the 'funny' replies were that the mod trashed though

[connoros]

I'm a little unfamiliar with these boards, when I said good answer I was referring to Jimmie Higgens, not that the others were not marvellous. I would like to know what the 'funny' replies were that the mod trashed though

Those were some one-liners about feeding you to lions or sacrificing you to the Devil if you resisted the mandates of the socialist revolution. I said you'd get five years in the Gulag.

What would be more likely though is that your resistance would be inconsequential and short-lived; you seem like all you really care about is giving your family a good life, not "fighting the good fight" for capitalism. Good on you, comrade.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't hold dreams of grandeur, just want to provide and enjoy this short life. It is a sad system we have because I'm missing my kids growing up in order to provide not just the basics but the consumer junk that assuages my guilt for not being there more. Well yeah, I think this is why most people who are wage workers probably have some attraction or dream to own their own little shop, or be a sucessful writer or painter or something - people romanticize these things in thinking they'd be free to work more on their own terms, to do something a little more under their power and more fufilling. But it's also just no possible for everyone to do things this way and even for those people who are paid skilled professionals or own their own thing, they are not as free as the romantic image makes it seem like and a big chunk fail no matter how hard they try or how good of a job they do. So what do we do? Just doggypaddle and try and find something to float on while billionaires can shape the world around their whims through the gravitational force of concentrated wealth? Hope they don't fuck up and cause our homes to be forclosed on? Since we can't hide and remain untouched in a bubble, because capitalism is a complex thing that causes the lights to go on because of the electrical workers in one place, guides shipping to happen, pumps fuel, in my view in order to achieve any freedom as an induvidual, as a worker I need to have collective freedom.

[Leo]

Only thing is I've never been much good at following orders, always preferred to do my own thing, I don't think I'd fare much better in a socialist paradise.

It did get me wondering however, what my fate would be if YOU got your desired revolution. If you are going to indulge me with an answer then you need a few details:

I own my own small business, just 3 employees, it's not particularly profitable but I make a living and hope to grow it so that it supports me and my family to have a better life. I am hands on at work and do the same amount of physical work my employees do, but much longer hours, sometimes they earn more, sometimes I do. I rent the land we occupy and started it myself with very little capital (less than £5k)Well, one thing is for sure, if an actual workers' revolution took place, you won't have to take no orders. What would happen in my opinion is that you would have the choice between joining a collective where everyone takes all the decisions together and works together or doing whatever trade you do in your own shop, however what you wouldn't be able to do would be employing people. However more likely than not, you would prefer being part of a collective, since socialization would be encouraged meaning it would mean better living conditions. No, no one would kill you or send you to the gulag or anything.

However, this is simply the period of transition from capitalism to communism, in other words the dictatorship of the proletariat, the main features of which, according to my organization (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_problems_mc.htm), are the following:

* Immediate socialization of the great capitalist concentrations and of the principal centres of productive activity.

* Planning of production and distribution--the criteria of production must be the maximum satisfaction of needs and no longer of accumulation.

* Massive reduction of the working day.

* Substantial rise in the standard of living.

* The attempt to abolish remuneration based on wages and on its money form.

* Socialisation of consumption and of the satisfaction of needs (transportation, leisure, meals, etc).

* The relationship between the collectivised sectors and sectors of production which are still individual--particularly in the countryside--must tend towards an organised collective exchange through cooperatives, thus suppressing the market and individual exchange.

Communism itself is a world of associated producers where every does their own things anyway, since there is no division of labor anymore. Here's how Marx describes how that will be like: "For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Hope this clears things.

[Hit The North]

As a "scrap man", you might find that the more rational circulation of goods in a socialist economy will reduce the need for scrap yards and free you up to do something more fulfilling without having to worry about your family's material circumstances.

[ckaihatsu]

That's a very good answer, thank you. It is true that in our current system the bigger fish have the deck well stacked in their favour, one my biggest financial leaks is compliance with all the environmental and legal requirements (I run a scrap yard). The big boys can afford to have someone full time and they gain economies of scale. On the other hand I also have to compete with people who break Cars on their drive and can sell parts for much less.
I don't hold dreams of grandeur, just want to provide and enjoy this short life. It is a sad system we have because I'm missing my kids growing up in order to provide not just the basics but




the consumer junk that assuages my guilt for not being there more.
For what it matters I hate the consumer society, I think we've gone way wrong as a people.


Just f.y.i., I'd like to point out that the very *definition* of 'civilization' is 'what people figure out to do with their time in a fixed location'. A bettering of the mode of production (from capitalism to socialism) will not *end civilization* and its accoutrements -- consumerist-type stuff like entertainment, leisure, the arts, etc. Many people seem to subconsciously have a Garden-of-Eden idea in mind when they think and talk about ending capitalism.





Only thing is I've never been much good at following orders,


This *could* be taken as a slight by the revolutionary position, since it implies some kind of automatic Stalinism, or wanton authoritarianism. It's a common misconception that a post-capitalist society would *need* a dictatorial kind of authority in order to exist.





always preferred to do my own thing, I don't think I'd fare much better in a socialist paradise.


This, too, can't be taken kindly, though your overall tone is mostly conciliatory.

In the present day people often say "I'd rather be rich", and the reason is because the ownership of wealth confers a much broader range of material *options* for those who have money. As socialists we're saying that the average *access* to material options needs to be increased, for everybody, since the stuff -- and the possibility for it -- already exists.

*These* days those who prefer to do their own thing, *without* money, wind up looking crazy because their ambitions outstrip their means -- (think of the stereotype of the guy who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte).

A "socialist paradise" -- the term itself being a political slur -- would actually increase the material *possibilities* for individual expression, and would utterly *transform* people's personalities, if they happened to live from one era to the next. Here's from my favorite essay on the topic:




Upon the other hand, Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism.

Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture—in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.




http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10h.htm

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

For what it matters I hate the consumer society, I think we've gone way wrong as a people. Only thing is I've never been much good at following orders, always preferred to do my own thing, I don't think I'd fare much better in a socialist paradise.

You'd be surprised at how many people here think the same way, I think.

[Hiero]

Nothing, as I said. It would be impossible for him to keep the business from being socialised forever for all the reasons I stated in parenthesises.

I don't think you understand counter revolution.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't think you understand counter revolution.

Good for you. I think I do.

[Comrade #138672]

I wouldn't worry about it. You're not the primary concern of Communists. To be honest, you're "just" a small Capitalist, barely appearing on the radar. Little will change (at first), if it's true that your employees are mostly co-workers. Except that you are no longer the owner of everything and your employees will become "formal" co-workers rather than employees. If they want to keep working with you, that is.

What were you thinking of? Gulags? For small Capitalists like you? Don't flatter yourself.

[Baseball]

I wouldn't worry about it. You're not the primary concern of Communists. To be honest, you're "just" a small Capitalist, barely appearing on the radar. Little will change (at first.


Liquidation on the installment plan. Scarcely a distinction.

[Hiero]

Good for you. I think I do.

They way you propose revolution, nothing would actually get done. The whole basis of the revolution in this epoch of capitalism an maintaining revolution is proleteriat power. A small buisness owner doesn't get a choice or democrative power in a revolution. In the context of revolution that individual would be part of a class of people whose interest would be counter revolution. Your type of revolution would just collapse on itself self.

Alot of the statements in this thread are just wierd for thoose promoting a revolution.

[Ace High]

I feel like the premise of this thread is a bit ridiculous, I don't know. I mean under a socialist system, every "business" becomes a cooperative led by the collective members. Basically the workers make decisions based on majority vote for each cooperative, whatever. So if you would just work with them and you would all receive the same pay. But never fear, socialist revolution means that eventually you won't have to worry about paying the mortgage on your house or car.

The reason I feel like this thread is ridiculous is because it is a small business which makes like zero impact on the world economy or even the local economy. Plus, not ALL leftists are crazy and violent people that look at every business owner as an evil capitalist that must be silenced. At least I don't think that way. You aren't a bad person for running a small business because this corrupt system forces you to play along sometimes, lost among the cogs of the machine.

[papito]

What were you thinking of? Gulags? For small Capitalists like you? Don't flatter yourself.

I assure you it wasn't vanity, I never considered gulags because I would have thought communism would have moved on from that sort of thing. Perhaps it has and I'm missing the joke.

More importantly though, I'm not sure it's fair to label me a capitalist, small or otherwise. It implies that I believe in a certain economic system and I'm following my dream of (attempted) wealth accumulation.

The reality is that I would not be able to get a job, other than maybe a minimum wage position after lengthy interviews, I then wouldn't earn enough to survive myself let alone raise a family, thus becoming reliant on dwindling state handouts. I am therefore forced by circumstances to create (for myself) some income.

Does that mean I'm a capitalist or a victim of the system?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Hi,

I've enjoyed lurking on this forum for a while, although I disagree with a fair amount of what I read, I none the less admire people who are passionate about something.

It did get me wondering however, what my fate would be if YOU got your desired revolution. If you are going to indulge me with an answer then you need a few details:

I own my own small business, just 3 employees, it's not particularly profitable but I make a living and hope to grow it so that it supports me and my family to have a better life. I am hands on at work and do the same amount of physical work my employees do, but much longer hours, sometimes they earn more, sometimes I do. I rent the land we occupy and started it myself with very little capital (less than £5k)

My personal politics should matter I guess so I won't go in to them.

If the Monopoly Capitalist Enterprises don't out-compete you or the developing systemic crisis of Capitalism ruins your business, you can rest assured that either the the Socialist Monopoly Enterprises will swallow up your business eventually.

If you are a shit employer there of course always is the possibility of your workers organizing for better human conditions of work. Advice from the Communists to such disgruntled party member workers, would be to gain sympathy from their coworkers to set up a permanent workplace workers' committee, the basis for a future communist (worker controlled) mode of production.

If you deny the space for workers to have regular meetings on how to fight you, their oppressor, organized workers at your and every other enterprise that does any kind of business with you, will go on strike; freeze your money making machine and make you plead with your creditors until you cry uncle. Obviously, you're a small guy, so you don't have much credit.
You would probably favor the consequences of dealing on a civil manner with the workers' request rather than think of calling up those politician friends and generals you tell your subservient managers to give a nice "campaign contribution" to and fucking up 'the dirty rabble'.

The workplace committee, and all the worker councils around the country, serve as the recruiting grounds for organized Labor and revolutionary education of wage dependent laborers. If it comes to a Revolutionary crisis, it would behoove each and every single communist Worker to give their all and win majority support in the committees and councils for the political Program of the most theoretically advanced workers' political Party and to try to win it the support of a social majority.

It's quite likely that absolutely nothing would happen to you as a petty-bourgeois personally, so long you are not a notorious enemy of the well being of the working People. I'm certain that honest small time entrepreneurs like you, who have a lower class and no bourgeois history, would take sides with the workers' Guns instead of the Billionaire's status quo thugs when the time comes.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be) that so many responses on this thread advocate "revolution on an installment plan", and rely on cooperative ownership, the lower form of social ownership.

Small commodity production, and small capitalist enterprise in general, is not as harmless as some members insinuate. At the risk of sounding cliched, it continuously generates capitalist relations. Tactical considerations might warrant that this process be delayed somewhat, but the elimination of the petite bourgeoisie as a class (this means dissolving the relations of production that define that class through the nationalisation of small enterprise) is a prerequisite of socialist construction.

And cooperative ownership is, as per my previous point, the lower form of social ownership, closer to bourgeois norms in that it restricts ownership to a certain subgroup of the proletariat. State ownership is the higher form of social ownership because, in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it corresponds to ownership by the entire working people.

Therefore, if the circumstances still demand small economic units, their immediate nationalisation seems to be the most effective course of action. Of course, this would mean "taking orders", but one must take orders in the present system at any rate.

[papito]

I feel like the premise of this thread is a bit ridiculous, I don't know. I mean under a socialist system, every "business" becomes a cooperative led by the collective members. Basically the workers make decisions based on majority vote for each cooperative, whatever. So if you would just work with them and you would all receive the same pay. But never fear, socialist revolution means that eventually you won't have to worry about paying the mortgage on your house or car.

The reason I feel like this thread is ridiculous is because it is a small business which makes like zero impact on the world economy or even the local economy. Plus, not ALL leftists are crazy and violent people that look at every business owner as an evil capitalist that must be silenced. At least I don't think that way. You aren't a bad person for running a small business because this corrupt system forces you to play along sometimes, lost among the cogs of the machine.

I think maybe my posts are delayed or sometimes don't work.

Maybe this is a ridiculous question to you, for my part I genuinely think massive upheaval and social change is going to happen, it is just a question of which way things will turn out and in what order. For that reason to me, and a few million others like me, it is pretty relevant.

Also, as it sounds to me, your idea seems pretty ridiculous. I, and any sensible small business owner, obviously regularly consults with employees - not to do so is madness as they have direct knowledge of what & how goals can be achieved. The question is how small a decision ever needs to be voted on? Working hours, Production goals - sure, big things. Do we need to vote on the little things too? What about tool suppliers or which toilet paper we order - it matters to someone but it wastes a hell of a lot of time if you vote on it.

(slightly off topic)Any rise to power of leftist groups will only come, in my opinion, as a reaction to a a totalitarian new world order. I assume that most users of this forum agree that all the real wealth is in the hands of a few families and that their overwhelming desire for power and wealth is what sucks it away from the population. They own you, they own me, they own the governments, the resources, the media - everything. Only when their muscles openly flex and people wake up to it can something, anything, arise from grass roots level.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I think maybe my posts are delayed or sometimes don't work.

Maybe this is a ridiculous question to you, for my part I genuinely think massive upheaval and social change is going to happen, it is just a question of which way things will turn out and in what order. For that reason to me, and a few million others like me, it is pretty relevant.
Yeah, i agree that there's going to be a big upheaval in the next generation or two - I'm not personally sure if it'll work out well (from my point of view or not) but I suppose if people start considering Marx's ideas as viable again who know.



Also, as it sounds to me, your idea seems pretty ridiculous. I, and any sensible small business owner, obviously regularly consults with employees - not to do so is madness as they have direct knowledge of what & how goals can be achieved. The question is how small a decision ever needs to be voted on? Working hours, Production goals - sure, big things. Do we need to vote on the little things too? What about tool suppliers or which toilet paper we order - it matters to someone but it wastes a hell of a lot of time if you vote on it.
I imagine for you it wouldn't be too different, haha. Looks like you already see your employees as more or less in the same boat as yourself and you seem like the kind of person who'd make the change from "owner" to "equal" pretty quickly. Consultation on big things will be democratic, on little things it'll probably be the same as it is now, I guess. It's hard for us to supply any really concrete view of the future, you understand, because it, well, hasn't happened yet. We've got a basic idea of it but the detail - well, we're going to have to work it out as we go along.



(slightly off topic)Any rise to power of leftist groups will only come, in my opinion, as a reaction to a a totalitarian new world order. I assume that most users of this forum agree that all the real wealth is in the hands of a few families and that their overwhelming desire for power and wealth is what sucks it away from the population. They own you, they own me, they own the governments, the resources, the media - everything. Only when their muscles openly flex and people wake up to it can something, anything, arise from grass roots level.
Now you're talking :D


I believe the SPGB are a bit of a controversial organisation around these parts but i think they offer a pretty good broad idea on how society will work, more or less. Here's a link.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/what-socialism

They've had 110 years practise at this so in terms of what socialism is and isn't I think they're pretty spot on

[Ace High]

I think maybe my posts are delayed or sometimes don't work.

Maybe this is a ridiculous question to you, for my part I genuinely think massive upheaval and social change is going to happen, it is just a question of which way things will turn out and in what order. For that reason to me, and a few million others like me, it is pretty relevant.

Also, as it sounds to me, your idea seems pretty ridiculous. I, and any sensible small business owner, obviously regularly consults with employees - not to do so is madness as they have direct knowledge of what & how goals can be achieved. The question is how small a decision ever needs to be voted on? Working hours, Production goals - sure, big things. Do we need to vote on the little things too? What about tool suppliers or which toilet paper we order - it matters to someone but it wastes a hell of a lot of time if you vote on it.

(slightly off topic)Any rise to power of leftist groups will only come, in my opinion, as a reaction to a a totalitarian new world order. I assume that most users of this forum agree that all the real wealth is in the hands of a few families and that their overwhelming desire for power and wealth is what sucks it away from the population. They own you, they own me, they own the governments, the resources, the media - everything. Only when their muscles openly flex and people wake up to it can something, anything, arise from grass roots level.

No you're right, it would be ridiculous to vote on trivial matters. I meant more along the lines of, you are the management, correct? Under my system, there is no differentiation between the workers and the management. It is all the same. So the voting does mean in terms of management decisions, big decisions. The workers aren't going to strike or complain to the central government that you made a decision to get toilet paper without consulting them. This isn't meant to result in a tense situation. It is meant to bring about a symbiosis between the classes, meaning a symbiosis in the workplace.

And yes, wealth IS concentrated into the hands of a few families, banking families to be exact. That is what capitalism has resulted in. Slavery via a system of debt based on fractional reserve banking. But I could go on about that. I must say, I like how you have come on this forum to ask questions, even if you disagree with us. That is the nature of finding enlightenment.

[Comrade Jacob]

The chances are you would keep your business but it will become a collectivised "industry" if we could call it that. Meaning the surplus value made by the labour (Money generated and not kept in your pay) would go to the state to fund things for everyone. Meanwhile at the work place there won't be a boss and the decisions would be made democratically by the workers and none will get more for their pay.
I hope this gives you a rough out-line. :)

[Klaatu]

I own my own small business, just 3 employees, it's not particularly profitable but I make a living and hope to grow it so that it supports me and my family to have a better life. I am hands on at work and do the same amount of physical work my employees do, but much longer hours, sometimes they earn more, sometimes I do. I rent the land we occupy and started it myself with very little capital (less than £5k)

In my opinion very little would "happen" to a private business such as yours, with it's three employees (especially if it is a family-only business.)

But the huge corporations, such as WalMart, Exxon-Mobil, the Big Banks, etc, would be completely nationalized and, like someone had said here, the workers would gain control. Yes there would be a "management," but only in terms of those skilled and educated in how to run things. They would be paid a fair wage, but gone are the bad-'ol-days of 85-million dollar CEOs.

[Rafiq]

Your property would be seized and you'd probably be categorized by the state as a potential counter revolutionary due to your petite bourgeois background.

[Rafiq]

The petite bourgeoisie are more reactionary than any class existing within the capitalist mode of production. Compare Obama to right wing militias and the likes of Ron Paul. The bourgeoisie will be easily dealt with after that which protects them is crushed or conquered. The petite bourgeoisie, however, will be the only class to directly take up arms against us. They are a worse class enemy than the bourgeoisie, they are the evil bastard brother of capital. The bourgeoisie is the diametrically opposed enemy. They know their interests and the proletariat knows it's own. We don't need to bullshit here. The bourgeoisie seeks to retain existing relations. They are capable of reason. Yes we will liquidate them, but they are rational in their interests. The petite bourgeoisie cannot offer a new mode of production or destroy the existing one. Therefore they are irrational, they are only capable of formatting alliances with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. They are only capable of making capitalism 'worse', I.e. more reactionary superstructure, and so on.

[Klaatu]

Your property would be seized and you'd probably be categorized by the state as a potential counter revolutionary due to your petite bourgeois background.


What you are implying is dictatorship. Why should workers give up one form of dictatorship (Capitalism) for another (Statism)?

Pardon my confusion, but I do not see how the state has anything to do with Socialism (which is an economic system, not a political system.)

The Workers' Paradise is about a Freedom of Association Among Workers, NOT having anything to do with governmental interference (except to enforce the rules against worker exploitation, which is the basic tenet of Capitalism)

So if we allow The State to run our personal business (therefore our lives!) we are no freer than we are now.

After all, is not The State itself a tool of the Ruling Class?

[Ace High]

Your property would be seized and you'd probably be categorized by the state as a potential counter revolutionary due to your petite bourgeois background.

You think a person running a small business should be labeled a counter revolutionary? That's insanity, paranoid statism.

[Rafiq]

Well this is Communism. We do not oppose classes for being too wealthy or too boisterously propertied, we oppose them because of their relations to production, and their role in keeping the proletariat - the proletariat.

[Klaatu]

Well this is Communism. We do not oppose classes for being too wealthy or too boisterously propertied, we oppose them because of their relations to production, and their role in keeping the proletariat - the proletariat.

You have nailed the worst of the present situation: the absolute power the wealthy ruling class holds. So even if we strip those individuals of their vast wealth, there remains the problem of geting them to leave the rest of us (proletariat) alone.

Both wealth AND power must be vanquished in Communist society. Getting ALL money out of politics would be a start.

[Buzzard]

I dont know, honestly. I work at a bookstore, and it's what I like doing, but as it is not really an occupation that gives(directly) back to society I would probably have to find some new means of work, although it probably wouldnt be too invasive *shrugs*

[Rafiq]

You have nailed the worst of the present situation: the absolute power the wealthy ruling class holds. So even if we strip those individuals of their vast wealth, there remains the problem of geting them to leave the rest of us (proletariat) alone.

Both wealth AND power must be vanquished in Communist society. Getting ALL money out of politics would be a start.

The petite bourgeoisie are incapable of formatting alliances with the proletariat in their interests. Come the revolution, they will be much worse do deal with, due to their sheer size in numbers and their localized standing.

[Klaatu]

The petite bourgeoisie are incapable of formatting alliances with the proletariat in their interests. Come the revolution, they will be much worse do deal with, due to their sheer size in numbers and their localized standing.

What can we do about this?

[ckaihatsu]

The petite bourgeoisie are incapable of formatting alliances with the proletariat in their interests. Come the revolution, they will be much worse do deal with, due to their sheer size in numbers and their localized standing.


*Or* -- being more localized and in closer physical proximity to the working class, they may side with the workers.

(This is one of those 'actual real-world situation' conditionals.)

[Rafiq]

What can we do about this?

All who oppose the revolution through political, or physical means will have to be dealt with in whatever way necessary.

[Rafiq]

*Or* -- being more localized and in closer physical proximity to the working class, they may side with the workers.


Yes, as the police, localized and "in closer physical proximity to the working class" will of course side with the workers. Except this is far from the case. The petite bourgeoisie are not the police. But they are just as reactionary and just as much enemies of the proletariat. Their very existence relies on the existence of not only commodity production but wage labor, the emancipation of the proletariat would not benefit them (and let's cut the utopian bullshit about "Well it'll benefit them in the long term because blah blah better economic situation" because it is like saying slave owners will benefit from the abolition of slavery because capitalism is more progressive, it's so abstract it's meaningless) in any imaginable way.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, as the police, localized and "in closer physical proximity to the working class" will of course side with the workers. Except this is far from the case.


Agreed, regarding the police.





The petite bourgeoisie are not the police. But they are just as reactionary and just as much enemies of the proletariat. Their very existence relies on the existence of not only commodity production but wage labor, the emancipation of the proletariat would not benefit them (and let's cut the utopian bullshit about "Well it'll benefit them in the long term because blah blah better economic situation" because it is like saying slave owners will benefit from the abolition of slavery because capitalism is more progressive, it's so abstract it's meaningless) in any imaginable way.


The point is not that the petty bourgeoisie would be 'won over' to the side of the proletariat, but rather that they would be pulled apart between the classes and would be forced by objective circumstances to choose either reaction (the bourgeoisie) or else become part of the proletarian tidal wave.

This isn't to be overly optimistic, either -- I'm not making any predictions.

[UncleLenin]

In my opinion, your business would remain private for a while. Most corporations would be nationalized but small business would be allowed. When the time is right, more extreme leftist policies will be implemented. I do not believe in the overthrow of the capitalist system and a new communist society right away, I believe that the state will become increasingly leftist then wither away.

[Sea]

Hi,

I've enjoyed lurking on this forum for a while, although I disagree with a fair amount of what I read, I none the less admire people who are passionate about something.

It did get me wondering however, what my fate would be if YOU got your desired revolution. If you are going to indulge me with an answer then you need a few details:

I own my own small business, just 3 employees, it's not particularly profitable but I make a living and hope to grow it so that it supports me and my family to have a better life. I am hands on at work and do the same amount of physical work my employees do, but much longer hours, sometimes they earn more, sometimes I do. I rent the land we occupy and started it myself with very little capital (less than £5k)

My personal politics should matter I guess so I won't go in to them.What would happen to you? I doubt anything in particular would happen to you as an individual. And of course all the responses will be people's personal opinions and wishful thinking, as Marxist theory doesn't (and doesn't need to) make such binding declarations as what will "happen" to each and every person.

I have one question, though. Why do you continue private ownership (as opposed to collective ownership of your business) if not to keep open the possibility of using your ownership rights to put yourself at an unfair advantage over those you employ? If you carry out your duties in as much equality as you claim, it would perhaps be beneficial to you to transform your business into a cooperative. You claim to be on equal grounds with your employees, and yet you retain the position that makes it possible for you to stand above them. This is rather curious to me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The petite bourgeoisie are incapable of formatting alliances with the proletariat in their interests. Come the revolution, they will be much worse do deal with, due to their sheer size in numbers and their localized standing.
As a class who can not offer a system of their own, they will likely be divided as individuals between the working class movement and reaction. The ones who side with reaction - yes, as you describe - will probably be the base of a fascist like reaction. In a revolution, roving bands of workers taking over every little shop, labeling every doctor or small farmer an automatic reactionary would make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's in the interests of a revolutionary class movement for workers to win over portions of the petty bourgeoise to minimize a fascist counter as much as possible. But this can only be effective IMO if an independent class movement exists that is capable of winning non-workers, but not subordinating themselves to other class interests.

[papito]

What would happen to you? I doubt anything in particular would happen to you as an individual. And of course all the responses will be people's personal opinions and wishful thinking, as Marxist theory doesn't (and doesn't need to) make such binding declarations as what will "happen" to each and every person.

I have one question, though. Why do you continue private ownership (as opposed to collective ownership of your business) if not to keep open the possibility of using your ownership rights to put yourself at an unfair advantage over those you employ? If you carry out your duties in as much equality as you claim, it would perhaps be beneficial to you to transform your business into a cooperative. You claim to be on equal grounds with your employees, and yet you retain the position that makes it possible for you to stand above them. This is rather curious to me.

They wouldn't go for it because they prefer to be paid every week and it's too precarious. I take the risk because of the reasons I've previously given and because I am building value to the business which I would one day hope to reap the reward (capitalise) upon. If you think this means putting myself at an unfair advantage then I would only challenge you on the unfair part.

By the way I know this because the discussion has been had. I distinctly got the impression that if things went well they would happily take a share of things if it put them at a financial advantage.

That is because people are selfish, workers and two bit small business owners alike. If things are quiet I don't hear anything said when I go the bank and take out my own cash for their wages. Funnily enough though when we have a bumper week or a big lump of cash comes in the words Billy bonus are mentioned quite a bit.

[papito]

By the way, thank you for the contributions to this thread. I kind of got my answer. I would like to think that I would see this coming with enough time to shut down the company (not the business) and extract as much cash and physically small but valuable items of stock as was possible. This wouldn't include tools or similar. I'd then make it a cooperative of workers (this is of course making some wide ranging assumptions about the political environment). I really can't see anyone objecting to me doing what I wish as I own the stuff, some I'd keep because we are talking about uncertain Times and I need to protect me and mine. The rest is gifted so who could object?

[Ace High]

LOL at the people thinking a small business owner is considered a counter-revolutionary. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, small business owners are always very pro-capitalist, but they would soon realize that they would do nothing but benefit from the revolution. Think about it, small business owners are generally very stressed-out people because of all their expenses and stuff. When their business becomes a co-op, they will not be "the boss" anymore, but it won't matter because guess what? No more fees, no more mortgage, no more car payment. So yeah, some of you are taking this a little too far. The counter revolutionaries are not going to be a bunch of angry small business owners.

[Fakeblock]

You would most likely be expropriated at some point, either by your employees or the state. Peacefully or violently depends on whether you resist and whether the revolutionary workers fell no enmity towards you.

Depending on what your business is it might be fused into a larger workplace or taken down. Or perhaps it would just remain a small operation. If it wasn't taken down, it would become a part of the larger economy, producing only for the benefit of the collective of workers and therefore most likely subject to the rulings of the planning institutions.

[danyboy27]

LOL at the people thinking a small business owner is considered a counter-revolutionary. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, small business owners are always very pro-capitalist, but they would soon realize that they would do nothing but benefit from the revolution. Think about it, small business owners are generally very stressed-out people because of all their expenses and stuff. When their business becomes a co-op, they will not be "the boss" anymore, but it won't matter because guess what? No more fees, no more mortgage, no more car payment. So yeah, some of you are taking this a little too far. The counter revolutionaries are not going to be a bunch of angry small business owners.
Dude you should get out more, small buisness owners are more often than not the most rabid pro-capitalists you will ever meet.

Big corporate CEO gave up on the idea of a free market long time ago, Small buisness owners still believe in this crazy idea.

[Ace High]

Dude you should get out more, small buisness owners are more often than not the most rabid pro-capitalists you will ever meet.

Big corporate CEO gave up on the idea of a free market long time ago, Small buisness owners still believe in this crazy idea.

Yeah but it's really a sense of inflated egos on their part. Once they realize they barely have any effect on the economy, they will understand. I mean, there is no way these people are going to take up arms against a revolution. They are hardly informed enough to know what's going on because they think "ooh I am making money off this business I am a big successful capitalist." They are not educated on the reality of corporatism, the banking industry, and the power structure in general. It's the people who ARE educated who we need to worry about. The people who ARE educated are the wealthy CEOs who know what they are doing is wrong, but they will not give up their power. Small business owners have very little power to actually give up, and their economic status in society would hardly even be changed. However, for those more at the top, their status WILL drastically change. So those are the true counter revolutionaries, not some greedy douche non-chain restaurant owner.

[Popular Front of Judea]

First I want to thank @papito for starting this thread -- and for being a good sport about the responses they in turn received. I do have to wonder with some of the more doctrinaire responses whether the poster ever had reason to visit a scrapyard or small machine shop. I would think reviewing the histories of various "actually existing" socialist societies would make one aware just how important independent tradesmen and sole proprietors are to keeping industrial economies humming. Cuba's fleet of '50s American cars comes to mind.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/10/13/antique_us_cars_are_cubas_new_vehicles_for_change. html

[papito]

First I want to thank @papito for starting this thread -- and for being a good sport about the responses they in turn received. I do have to wonder with some of the more doctrinaire responses whether the poster ever had reason to visit a scrapyard or small machine shop. I would think reviewing the histories of various "actually existing" socialist societies would make one aware just how important independent tradesmen and sole proprietors are to keeping industrial economies humming. Cuba's fleet of '50s American cars comes to mind.

l[/url]

Those are some nice things you said there friend, I appreciate it. Don't look at my posts in the pro life/choice thread, I'm just upsetting everyone over there.

I like you guys, it makes me see that in many ways we aren't so different. If you'll agree to let me continue tinkering with cars and selling bits off them whilst taking the occasional break to blow up some airbags then I hope you get your revolution. You've got my vote, not that you'd need it of course.

What I don't want is to be oppressed, I realise that I am currently oppressed, not by an individual boss but by a system that means if I stop pedalling I will fall off

[papito]

Moving on then. What would you do about the workshy? Because I could definitely be one of them.

Seriously though, because this is at the core of why most people, by which I mean me, think communism would fail - if people are broadly remunerated equally, why strive?

[ckaihatsu]

If you'll agree to let me continue tinkering with cars and selling bits off them whilst taking the occasional break to blow up some airbags then I hope you get your revolution. You've got my vote, not that you'd need it of course.


If I may -- perhaps the politically-better way of looking at this is "Why aren't tinkerers being provided with every last bit of whatever that they need, given how readily car and parts production can be done?"

In other words, sure, *some* workers would be involved in *mass* production, for goods that are well-defined and standardized onto assembly-line processes -- but others, perhaps like yourself, would be more interested in its flipside "de-standardization", or the creative process of seeing how things can be done in new ways (tinkering, innovating).

The 'selling' part could be seen as entirely *superfluous*, since if there's plenty of whatever for everyone, people would be freed from all money-oriented formalities -- they could focus more on *who* would be the best person(s) to hand things off to, for the sakes of innovation and productivity.





What I don't want is to be oppressed, I realise that I am currently oppressed, not by an individual boss but by a system that means if I stop pedalling I will fall off


Yeah, the market system is the proverbial "800-pound gorilla in the room" since it's not needed anymore, particularly in these days of the Internet where we can all just reach out to each other at will, no matter the distances involved.

Plenty of boogeyman tactics are used against the revolutionary position, unfortunately, to make it sound like a post-revolution society will always be just a train wreck waiting to happen. The upside potentials, in relation to today's realities, are rarely discussed.

[ckaihatsu]

Moving on then. What would you do about the workshy? Because I could definitely be one of them.


There are *several* answers, or approaches, to this question, that I've seen.... I'll go in the order of most-general to most-detailed....

The *general* answer, which is sufficient for like-minded comrades for the sake of politics, is that current technologies already contain the capacity to provide sufficient productivity for human needs, as long as no one is being damaging or deleterious. This material fact effectively shifts the logistical question from one of "How will everyone be working equally?" to one of "What work would it take to effect sufficient productivity?"

This is a key distinction, because it moves the political question into the context of productivity and mass production, and *out of* the context of civil society and petty moralism.

Another general answer is that everything would just work out since there would be plenty to go around once the workers of the world are finally free to self-organize. This kind of enlightened social consciousness cuts against the standard reductionist mentality that everything involving 'consumption' means that the stuff being 'consumed' just disappears down into black holes of oblivion, never to be seen or used again. In this mindset all self-motivated, individualistic activity is 'consumption' and only detracts from the social good, regardless of any byproducts that may result, that may be socially beneficial in the long run. (So, for example, your selfish tinkering may wind up with you developing a new kind of engine that no one ever thought of before, and in the years to come this engine might wind up being mass-produced, benefiting the lives of millions of people.)

A "tighter", more-detailed approach to 'those who don't want to work' could involve some kind of rotation of duties, for a co-op or commune kind of arrangement -- this would look to involving every individual in some kind of social obligation, on an egalitarian basis. Here's one model, as an illustration:


Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimage.org/6pho0fbot/2403306060046342459_Gtc_Sd_P_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6pho0fbot/)


My own critique of the rotation system -- *any* rotation system -- is that it would probably require physical proximity among all participants, and so would be geographically inflexible. If labor effort is to be systematized somehow, so as to be recognized consistently universally, then the question becomes "How?", outside of capitalism's labor-commodification in the form of wages.

I developed a model of labor credits that addresses this question of systematization, to provide a standard unit of work effort no matter what the work role is, or the person doing it.





To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)





Seriously though, because this is at the core of why most people, by which I mean me, think communism would fail - if people are broadly remunerated equally, why strive?


This very formulation is a red herring since it uses the (bourgeois) economics mentality that all human behavior can be reduced to financially oriented motivations. So, after putting up this strawman, the economics mindset easily shreds it after first setting it down in the communist camp. It's essentially blaming the communist plan for not conforming to a financial mentality, while also imposing its own ideological version of human nature within the question.

Your 'tinkering' enthusiasm is helpful here since it shows that you're just trying to pay some bills and still have some time left to do what you want to do in creative ways -- 'striving', in other words. Would it really matter to you *how* those bills got paid -- basics provided-for -- if you could then continue to do your 'striving' as you like -- ? Of course not.

[papito]

Thanks for such a detailed answer, very interesting. I am currently using a mobile device which is a bit cumbersome, I'd like to reply a bit more thoroughly when I'm at the pc. Just wanted to say thanks though because I really enjoyed reading that and some of the links.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for such a detailed answer, very interesting. I am currently using a mobile device which is a bit cumbersome, I'd like to reply a bit more thoroughly when I'm at the pc. Just wanted to say thanks though because I really enjoyed reading that and some of the links.


Not at all -- there's no rush, so feel free to respond whenever you're ready. We're all doing this in our own interests, of course.... (grin)

[Dean]

That's a very good answer, thank you. It is true that in our current system the bigger fish have the deck well stacked in their favour, one my biggest financial leaks is compliance with all the environmental and legal requirements (I run a scrap yard). The big boys can afford to have someone full time and they gain economies of scale. On the other hand I also have to compete with people who break Cars on their drive and can sell parts for much less.
I don't hold dreams of grandeur, just want to provide and enjoy this short life. It is a sad system we have because I'm missing my kids growing up in order to provide not just the basics but the consumer junk that assuages my guilt for not being there more.

If you're involved in an enterprise that is helping to recycle old parts, I imagine your business will become much more busy in a situation of upheaval or reorganization on proletarian lines, for the simple reason that a workers state will seek to maximize the maintenance of produced value rather than to discard and encourage reproduction (your hated consumerism).


For what it matters I hate the consumer society, I think we've gone way wrong as a people. Only thing is I've never been much good at following orders, always preferred to do my own thing, I don't think I'd fare much better in a socialist paradise.

I am not sure why you think you would be at odds with a socialist regime. There are those who advocate for heavy centralization and some pretty wonky control mechanisms meant to dissuade behavior that is endemic to capitalist society. But socialist society is by its nature a different beast. The profit system and capitalism simply won't make much sense if it puts you outside of the new norm.

Imagine how much more business you might get if the media system were not inundated with competing services (such as buying a new car rather than fixing one with minor mechanical problem) but were instead in the form of an efficient database, accessible by all, for the posting and finding of needed services in your area. Even auto parts are a pain in the ass to find with the industry standard systems we have today, and many people are not familiar with the system, many junkyards do not post their goods online or pay for the service.

If you think you offer a good service, you can only do more business or better business with a system which does not provide undue weight to advertising-heavy firms. The basic nature of a small business is usually not a regimented capitalist system, and it would be easy to transition to a gift system or similar socialist mode. And it would only make sense to do so if that was the new dominant mode of production & distribution.

[ckaihatsu]

[A] business [would] become much more busy in a situation of upheaval or reorganization on proletarian lines, for the simple reason that a workers state will seek to maximize the maintenance of produced value rather than to discard and encourage reproduction (your hated consumerism).


Not to nitpick, but the practices that a workers state may or may not use in regards to production and 'produced value' could *vary* considerably -- we could very well wonder, for example, if such a society would have relatively easy or difficult access to clean drinking water and if they would tend to conserve it or use it in quantity, respectively.

(So for any given good or service, to what regard / extent would socialism value workers' efforts, as for the sourcing of clean drinking water -- ? By the *amount* of water consumable -- ? By the *cleanliness* of the water -- ? By the amount of *physical effort* necessitated -- ? (Etc.)

I mean to say that technical and 'nature-al' capacities -- for whatever -- are *variables* here and might not be realized from worker-effort in a direct, linearly deterministic way here. Maybe the immediate discarding of flawed or worn products would be socially *encouraged*, as a matter of productive 'best practices' and a perfected materials recycling system.





[I]t would be easy to transition to a gift system or similar socialist mode. And it would only make sense to do so if that was the new dominant mode of production & distribution.


I'm aware that I *may* be shitting all over the boutique proprietor lovefest that's taking place here and in all corridors of 'market socialism', but I *have* to point out exchanges of all sorts would be rendered unnecessary and superfluous by a 'fully-bloomed' socialism (of liberated mass production and free, direct distribution).

[Dean]

Not to nitpick, but the practices that a workers state may or may not use in regards to production and 'produced value' could *vary* considerably -- we could very well wonder, for example, if such a society would have relatively easy or difficult access to clean drinking water and if they would tend to conserve it or use it in quantity, respectively.

(So for any given good or service, to what regard / extent would socialism value workers' efforts, as for the sourcing of clean drinking water -- ? By the *amount* of water consumable -- ? By the *cleanliness* of the water -- ? By the amount of *physical effort* necessitated -- ? (Etc.)

I mean to say that technical and 'nature-al' capacities -- for whatever -- are *variables* here and might not be realized from worker-effort in a direct, linearly deterministic way here. Maybe the immediate discarding of flawed or worn products would be socially *encouraged*, as a matter of productive 'best practices' and a perfected materials recycling system.
Yes, I've actually considered this as well. It is a common theme in consumer production to have a shorter life cycle when improvements are happening rapidly. This allows a stronger demand and consumer onboarding for sustaining new systems and products. This is often a cynical, profiteering policy (the lightbulb cartel and the price-fixing that has been sustained from that are a great example of this while cell phone products can be seen as a market where life cycles are more appropriately shortened).

A socialist system is not devoid of the laws of economics. But I don't think it is likely to be homogeneous either. Like it or not, bulking up worker control of the means of production cannot and should not lead to an ossification of the marketplace. Consumer choice continues to matter, even if production-side engineering or worker rationalization processes decide that the ICE is no longer sustainable for consumer automobiles and phase out new production.



I'm aware that I *may* be shitting all over the boutique proprietor lovefest that's taking place here and in all corridors of 'market socialism', but I *have* to point out exchanges of all sorts would be rendered unnecessary and superfluous by a 'fully-bloomed' socialism (of liberated mass production and free, direct distribution).
I'm not sure what makes you think that junkyards would not exist or require upkeep in a socialist economy. Even a heavily centralized economic structure will have vehicle junkyards for state purposes unless it is completely phasing out all autos.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, I've actually considered this as well. It is a common theme in consumer production to have a shorter life cycle when improvements are happening rapidly. This allows a stronger demand and consumer onboarding for sustaining new systems and products. This is often a cynical, profiteering policy (the lightbulb cartel and the price-fixing that has been sustained from that are a great example of this while cell phone products can be seen as a market where life cycles are more appropriately shortened).

A socialist system is not devoid of the laws of economics. But I don't think it is likely to be homogeneous either. Like it or not,




bulking up worker control of the means of production cannot and should not lead to an ossification of the marketplace.


You have clashing contexts here -- which is it, worker control of the means of production *or* ... the marketplace (implying *bourgeois* control) -- ?





Consumer choice continues to matter, even if production-side engineering or worker rationalization processes decide that the ICE is no longer sustainable for consumer automobiles and phase out new production.




I'm not sure what makes you think that junkyards would not exist or require upkeep in a socialist economy. Even a heavily centralized economic structure will have vehicle junkyards for state purposes unless it is completely phasing out all autos.


You're equivocating here, then, if we include that...





[C]ell phone products can be seen as a market where life cycles are more appropriately shortened).


If we can take cell phones and other 'e-waste' as valid (and real-world) examples, we would probably have to admit that cell phones and other electronics are not necessary *repaired*, but instead might be *salvaged* for their base component materials.

A socialist order could very well take this 'automated product life cycle' to the "next level", retaining full conscious collective planning over each step of the product, from demand to brainstorming to production, possession, and potential other-possession, through to post-possession, all with zero 'negligence' or lack-of-planning at any conceivable step along the way.

So... 'junkyards' -- ? Really -- ?

I can't help but think that such an "inevitable" economic material institution would be technologically *obviated* in even the most *minimalistic* socialist implementation -- given the full freedom of open production no one would (understandably, appropriately) *deign* to spend their life-time with such crude, low-level professional activity. Instead, the preference and practice would be for getting into the cutting-edge hands-on engineering projects that many vie to lead in any given field of endeavor. As long as end-of-life (etc.) provisions are built into any particular item, it would have a way to be disassembled and 'melted-down' as it were, so that all items are *always* from-scratch, necessarily.