Are small shopowners class enemies?

[Jacob Cliff]

My boss at the pizza restaurant I work at is pretty generous with wages and isn't really super well off himself. He works alongside us and is close to his workers. Are small shop owners (the petty bourgeois) enemies of socialism? Would a revolution forcibly nationalize their small shops?

(And if so – wouldn't this be a little inefficient to have tens of thousands of small shops nationalized? Or would maybe these types of shops and stores still exist in the dictatorship of the proletariat until they naturally die out when socialist distribution makes them pointless?)

[BIXX]

My boss at the pizza restaurant I work at is pretty generous with wages and isn't really super well off himself. He works alongside us and is close to his workers. Are small shop owners (the petty bourgeois) enemies of socialism? Would a revolution forcibly nationalize their small shops?

(And if so – wouldn't this be a little inefficient to have tens of thousands of small shops nationalized? Or would maybe these types of shops and stores still exist in the dictatorship of the proletariat until they naturally die out when socialist distribution makes them pointless?)

They are enemies of autonomy. I don't want to "nationalize" (or socialize) their business, I want to remove it from the face of the earth.

[Bala Perdida]

Tens of thousands of small shops. RadioShack and McDonald's have more than that and they're better than well off. Fuck bosses still, I can't live off these piece of shit wages.

[Antiochus]

It would make little sense to have 'tens of thousands' of stores and shops performing redundant tasks and functions, if for efficiency's sake alone. In the short term, the 'bosses' can remain in their position as a manager or what have you, but without extracting the labour surplus of their employees.

The problem is, the 'small shop owners' are pre-disposed to reject this arrangement regardless. As far as them working hard, I don't doubt it. CEOs work really hard. You could even make the argument that your average 60 hour a week CEO works harder than your average ~30 hour, "part"-time temp worker. But nevertheless it is the nature of their relations to production and distribution that make one an exploiter and the other the exploited.

[RedWorker]

Your boss may be nice, but this really changes nothing. We're not talking on this level.

Your post seems to be informed by an emotional thinking view of "ok, I see why fat CEOs are dislikeable, but what about the poor small business owners? I know some of them and they aren't bad people".

The petty bourgeoisie tends to have reactionary political interests.

Why would the ownership of these businesses by their bosses be respected? The only reason this would be temporarily tolerated is if in the short term it would not be effective or efficient to immediately socialize them and place them under collective control. In any case, this would be a merely tactical question.

[WideAwake]

Man, in U.S, even many workers are enemies of the working class, specially high-wage workers, like many white collar workers, bank workers, doctors, nurses. They might not all be enemies of the working class, but many US workers are enemies of marxism and communism. I've noticed that middle class workers are very elitists, in the way they dress, their gestures and many other of their traits. I think that people in USA have this notion that if they move from lower-class life, and rise toward a middle class life, they are one step away, one class away from the class of celebrities, the happy and famous.




My boss at the pizza restaurant I work at is pretty generous with wages and isn't really super well off himself. He works alongside us and is close to his workers. Are small shop owners (the petty bourgeois) enemies of socialism? Would a revolution forcibly nationalize their small shops?

(And if so – wouldn't this be a little inefficient to have tens of thousands of small shops nationalized? Or would maybe these types of shops and stores still exist in the dictatorship of the proletariat until they naturally die out when socialist distribution makes them pointless?)

[ComradeAllende]

My boss at the pizza restaurant I work at is pretty generous with wages and isn't really super well off himself. He works alongside us and is close to his workers. Are small shop owners (the petty bourgeois) enemies of socialism? Would a revolution forcibly nationalize their small shops?

I would say no, primarily because (A) it would be inefficient for a socialist regime to nationalize each and every shop and (B) because socialists would rather combine the various shops into a single "association of free producers" within each respective industry.

As for the class position of the shop owners, I would argue that as exploiters of labor, they are technically our class enemies. Regardless of how the businessman treats his employees, it is still fundamental unjust for him to have such a coercive and penetrating influence over their lives. It's similar to the benevolent slaveholder argument, where people defend the institution by pointing to "good actors" (as opposed to the stereotype of the cruel bigoted owner). Such an argument confuses the unjust nature of an institution with individual tendencies and actions of its beneficiaries/defenders. The problem, in other words, is not how the small businessman uses his power over his employees but with the existence of said power.


(And if so – wouldn't this be a little inefficient to have tens of thousands of small shops nationalized? Or would maybe these types of shops and stores still exist in the dictatorship of the proletariat until they naturally die out when socialist distribution makes them pointless?)

Personally, I think that all the centers of production should be organized in a semi-centralized fashion (the syndicalist idea of industrial associations sounds interesting to me) with decentralized distribution units (i.e. "socialist shops"). These distribution units could be "managed" by individuals, but they'd have to be appointed by local councils and held accountable via periodic elections or things like that.

[Gotya]

...it is still fundamental unjust for him to have such a coercive and penetrating influence over their lives. It's similar to the benevolent slaveholder argument, where people defend the institution by pointing to "good actors" (as opposed to the stereotype of the cruel bigoted owner).

This is where the argument is silly and nothing is taken seriously. It's an insult to compare a small business owner to a slave owner. Slaves were slaves by law. Nobody is making you work for the pizza store owner. What an insult.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think ComradeAllende was saying that working at a pizza house is the same as slavery. I think the argument is that the 'but there are good bosses' argument is similar to the 'but there were good slave-owners' argument. The point is, the personal character of the actors is not as important as the system that they're acting within.

[Flavius]

This is where we stand? We point at petty pizza restaurant owners and shout enemy? Really? This is how low we are? Come on. This is just absurd. The enemy is not the pizza restaurant owner. The enemy is the system, the cruelty and decadence caused by the system, the dictatorial multinational companies and their inhumane deeds and fundamental corruption. Social conservative bigotry, ignorance, et cetera. Not some guy baking pizza.

[Hatshepsut]

Would a revolution forcibly nationalize their small shops?

The revolutionaries didn't always have to in Russia. In many urban areas, shops had already folded once their supplies were cut off by wartime conditions and the shopowners were long gone when looters arrived to get whatever was left on the shelves. Petrograd, the first place seized, was quieter: Morgan Price, a Manchester Guardian correspondent in Petrograd, quotes one of his informants when the Bolsheviks took power as asking, "But will they be able to bring food to the towns?" (My Reminiscences of the Russian Revolution, Hyperion, 1921, p. 149: search Google Books for download).

It pays to know what one is getting into if advocating revolutions. They're not usually very pleasant events. So why does anyone advocate such a thing? Because we are convinced the class of exploiters is wrong. Bourgeois imperialism has already visited nuclear warfare on the world at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, continuing to retain thousands of deadly devices years after "arms control" treaties supposedly ended this threat to civilization. Exploitation isn't very severe in the USA except for certain marginalized groups; however the long-running economic largess is subject to abrupt end by financial implosions in global capitalism, a thing bourgeois governments are losing the ability to bail out. We may not have a TARP next time around.

So one prefers revolution only based on comparison with alternatives, since it's messy. Private property and private profit won't be allowed, however. That is the whole point of a revolution.

Bela Kun, Marx & the Middle Classes, 1918
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Your boss is a small capitalist, or petty bourgeoisie, in class location. Because his business is small, he often performs the duties of his workers, alongside his workers. This is why Marxists consider the petty bourgeoisie to be middle class, caught in between capital on the one hand and wage labor on the other.

The middle class are notoriously fickle and will shift their allegiances first to the capitalists, then to the workers, then back again. They vacillate since they have no independent world-historical role to play as the two main classes under capitalism have played and will play.

Does his class position make him a class enemy then? First of all, it is the political program pursued by a person, not their individual class position, that makes them political enemies of workers or not. Second of all, his class position does not place him direct antagonism to the workers. Because he is middle class, he will sometimes share the grievances of workers, sometimes the grievances of big capitalists.

[ComradeAllende]

This is where we stand? We point at petty pizza restaurant owners and shout enemy? Really? This is how low we are? Come on. This is just absurd. The enemy is not the pizza restaurant owner. The enemy is the system, the cruelty and decadence caused by the system, the dictatorial multinational companies and their inhumane deeds and fundamental corruption. Social conservative bigotry, ignorance, et cetera. Not some guy baking pizza.

It's not that he is our enemy per se; in some cases the shop-owner class can be sympathetic to proletarian grievances against the privileged status of big capital. It's more that we cannot fully identify with his interests, since he supports capitalism (albeit a version more adapted to the likes of Adam Smith) and is therefore incapable of embracing the socialist cause. That does not mean we need to engage in widespread dekulakization, so to speak, but we must eliminate any illusions of allying ourselves with extractors of surplus value (even if they produce some of it themselves).

[Futility Personified]

I always understood it as the small business owner, being a capitalist, has the aim of accumulating as much capital as possible. Eventually, this is going to lead to class struggle as profit maximisation always clashes with the interests of the workers. There are many people who are petit-bourgeois who are not completely hostile to socialism, and are good bosses. But it's a structural thing, and to rely on emancipation based on the kindness of your boss is where the slave owner comparison becomes apt. Historically, they've tended to side with the ruling class, because they have more to lose, but don't understand what they have to gain.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is where we stand? We point at petty pizza restaurant owners and shout enemy? Really? This is how low we are? Come on. This is just absurd. The enemy is not the pizza restaurant owner. The enemy is the system, the cruelty and decadence caused by the system, the dictatorial multinational companies and their inhumane deeds and fundamental corruption. Social conservative bigotry, ignorance, et cetera. Not some guy baking pizza.

Take a look at what you say we oppose one more time:


the system


the cruelty and decadence caused by the system


the dictatorial multinational companies and their inhumane deeds and fundamental corruption


Social conservative bigotry...ignorance

Now ask yourself: are those complaints really any different from the complaints of a liberal? Or some libertarians, for that matter?

I'm not accusing you of being a liberal, I'm just saying that the far left uses a specific methodology which concludes that yes, the system of distribution exemplified by the small business owner is quite problematic. The relationships and calculations one can see in the "dictatorial multinational corporations" are still present in small businesses, only on a much smaller scale obviously.

But I can understand why someone would be apprehensive about the "class enemy" label...whenever you declare that some wide swath of people is "the enemy" based on a classification like race, nationality/ethnicity, or class, that leaves a bad taste in people's mouths and I get that. There are plenty of good human beings among the ranks of the people you're talking about, on a personal level. But of course we still oppose them and try to leverage economic control away from them whenever possible...

[Flavius]

I think that size does matter in this context. McDonald's, for example is very different from Random Joe's Pizza Restaurant. The bigger, the worse. More people, less personal contact and relationship leads to more unfair and inhumane conditions. Of course it is quite problematic how small businesses are run, but declaring the guy who makes and sells hot dogs with some of his employees in my opinion is both ridiculous and dehumanizing. My problem is actually with that label. Such things can lead very easily to linching the shop owner 'coz class enemies b*tch. Of course these kind of businesses are not compatible with an ideal socialist society. But I can't hide it, I can be moralizing and sentimental, and it just doesn't seem right to shout enemy! at every corner.

[Comrade Jacob]

Petit-bourgeois is hardly comparable to the porky-bastard-CEOs. They really should make their business into a cooperative tho.

[Bala Perdida]

Petit-bourgeois is hardly comparable to the porky-bastard-CEOs. They really should make their business into a cooperative tho.

The boss earns the same crappy wage as me! What does that solve?

[redblackveg]

Petit-bourgeois is hardly comparable to the porky-bastard-CEOs. They really should make their business into a cooperative tho.

Exactly.

If the 'small shop-owner' really cares about the working class (rather than just fleeing from it themselves) then they would adopt a cooperative-style ownership of resources and labor, opposed to the current popular model. When was that wealth supposed to start trickling down here again?

[Hatshepsut]

Clearly a revolution intends to separate the pizzeria owner from the private property, making it likely most such small businesspersons will stop vacillating and go over to the bourgeois side if communism looms. That's how it's been in the past.

But I'm not sure a socialist society evolving toward communism will forbid people from operating restaurants; it's just that their use of physical capital to do so will be at the discretion of the workers and their soviets. And while welcome to make their living that way, they won't be allowed to take profits out. If the pizzeria owners accept these conditions, I'm not in favor of pre-emptive suppression in the name of class struggle, a dynamic we see frequently in the history. Class divisions today are in fact less sharp than they once were, so that individual political conversions will play a larger role in the future.

[Atsumari]

Petit-bourgeois is hardly comparable to the porky-bastard-CEOs. They really should make their business into a cooperative tho.
lol once you have worked for some Korean or Japanese/yakuza restaurant owners, you will see just how evil many small business owners can get. There is a reason why people burn small businesses down whenever there is a riot.

[Sewer Socialist]

No one here is saying that Random Joe is a bad person because he owns Random Joe's Pizza Place. But, a movement which is influenced by a membership of a bunch of small shopowners (pwners lol) will probably have different aims than one influenced by the direction of Random Joe's employees, McDonald's employees. We can see this in movements which are not strictly proletarian movements; movements which have influence from the petty-bourgeoisie, "community leaders", etc. Black Lives Matter, and Occupy, for example, are/were not a communist organization, but a liberal one, and its broad class composition will / did very likely prevent them from ever being a communist organization.

The point of identification of class enemies in this discussion isn't who is a good individual, it isn't who is a bad individual, it isn't who will be lynched, or any other such thing, but understanding their motivations as a class, and the result of any actions as a class.

And, as an aside, while we're talking about working conditions between McDonald's and Random Joe's Pizza Restaurant, I absolutely hate when my supervisor is the owner. The owner is nearly always the most finicky, most critical, etc. And when my supervisor is directly supervised by the owner, that also leads to a more critical supervisor. Generally speaking, of course. Even when I had a boss who was an anarchist, he was very uptight, very critical, and less enjoyable. And for good reason; the company is their property, and your productivity and good work directly creates their wealth.

[Comrade Jacob]

I wasn't saying they are always better

[Rudolf]

Does his class position make him a class enemy then? First of all, it is the political program pursued by a person, not their individual class position, that makes them political enemies of workers or not. Second of all, his class position does not place him direct antagonism to the workers. Because he is middle class, he will sometimes share the grievances of workers, sometimes the grievances of big capitalists. .

It's not the same grievances as proles though is it? A small business owner's conflict with big capitalists is a conflict over competing capitals of different sizes. The worker's conflict with big capitalists is the same as with small ones - their exploitation.

The relations are the same regardless of the size of their capital. They are the representatives of capital and thus locked in a clear antagonism with labour. Only in complete isolation from class struggle can a proclaimed communist not recognise the every day conflict between workers and their bosses purely because this capitalist is a bit shit at growing their capital.


All the weakness of the small business owner should get them is to not be the immediate focus during a revolution and a bit of politeness. You still side with the workforce and socialise their means of production. If they don't like it they can piss off into the wilderness.

[Flavius]

After reading this thread through and thinking about it:

The way Random Joe runs his pizza restaurant is problematic from a revolutionary viewpoint. Indeed it is. However, I don't think small businesses are priority, and I still think that they are far not as bad as big burgeoisie.

Just summarizing stuff.

[Blake's Baby]

But the logic of that position is, inefficient capitalism is better than efficient capitalism.

It isn't, both are a problem. For the worker at the 'mom and pop store' conditions may be much worse than for the worker at the big multi-national - they likely have to work for lower wages, possibly longer hours with less chance of overtime payments, with less provision for holidays, sick-pay or whatever other meagre 'social wage' benefits workers may get.

The 1840s weren't nicer than the 1920s. That's a myth peddled by the 'Libertarians'/'Anarcho-Capitalists', about how capitalism is great when it's not run by the corporations/the state/the Jews.

[DOOM]

Small shopowners are part ot the petit bourgeois. Now, the goal of every individual capital is to accumulate as much capital as possible by exploiting as much labor as possible. This means that the petit bourgeoisie's class interest is opposed to the class interest of the proletariat.
However, the position of the petit bourgeois is shaky. Either they manage to accumulate enough capital to become full blown burgs or they fail in their mission and become proles.

[DOOM]

Petit-bourgeois is hardly comparable to the porky-bastard-CEOs. They really should make their business into a cooperative tho.

What the fuck

Why are you so sure that workers are better off working for petit bourgeois than working for big business?

And "porky-bastard-CEOs" isn't far away from "rootless cosmopolitans" and "ravaging locusts", mark my words.

[VivalaCuarta]

Sure they are class enemies but they are hardly the most important ones. With a little strategic acumen the revolutionary workers can neutralize most of them or buy them off outright. Under a workers planned economy their role will "wither away" and they can get peacefully pensioned off, as long as they play by the workers rules.

[BIXX]

Sure they are class enemies but they are hardly the most important ones. With a little strategic acumen the revolutionary workers can neutralize most of them or buy them off outright. Under a workers planned economy their role will "wither away" and they can get peacefully pensioned off, as long as they play by the workers rules.

Just burn down the workplace and screw the rules

[blake 3:17]

But the logic of that position is, inefficient capitalism is better than efficient capitalism.

How are you measuring efficiency? By capitalist standards.

Mom and pop stores do a whole lot better better job of keeping social peace than fascist cops do. My locals will spot you a buck & tell the school kids not to be assholes. It's horribly inefficient profit wise but quite good socially.

[YungTrev]

The small business owners should not be targeted, I think
Marx would want te opposite. They are forced to compete against big business owners and franchises. I too work in a small business. Also, in a communist society we would have just one huge restaurant that distributes food to everyone. The small business's would strive in a communist society.

[BIXX]

The small business owners should not be targeted, I think Marx would want the opposite.

Lol

[BIXX]

Who even cares what Marx would have wanted? Let alone that whether or not a business was small or big does not not change shit for communists.

[Bala Perdida]

lol once you have worked for some Korean or Japanese/yakuza restaurant owners, you will see just how evil many small business owners can get. There is a reason why people burn small businesses down whenever there is a riot.That fucking downtown restaurant that didn't let me use the bathroom. Even after I offered to buy an ice tea in exchange! I had to wiz next to a subway station.

[YungTrev]

Who even cares what Marx would have wanted? Let alone that whether or not a business was small or big does not not change shit for communists.

Haha, well think about all the big restaurant and fast food franchises that we could be aiming at. The OP says his boss works along with him and does the same labor at times. Now I know that under socialism tha the boss would no longer be the boss, maybe moved down to manger, but we shouldn't act like these small business owners are the number one enemy for us.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How are you measuring efficiency? By capitalist standards.

That's the only way to measure (economic) efficiency today. Or you could look at things like material throughput, where again, larger, more organised enterprises show themselves to be superior. Of course we don't care about economic efficiency; efficient capitalism, inefficient capitalism, they can all go to hell. Nonetheless, the fact remains that large-scale, global, objectively socialised production far surpasses, in material terms, anything local, small, "artisanal" (good grief) and so on, and the socialist society will be based on that. What we're going to do with the small businesses in the transitional period is an open question; it probably won't be a good move to immediately nationalise every tobacco shop but at the same time petty commodity production, particularly in a backward are of the world, is a powerful generator of capitalist relations.


Mom and pop stores do a whole lot better better job of keeping social peace than fascist cops do. My locals will spot you a buck & tell the school kids not to be assholes. It's horribly inefficient profit wise but quite good socially.

Yes, small business owners are the pillars of the community.

But socialists don't want social peace and we don't want to uphold structures that channel the discontent with capitalism into peaceful, legal, essentially - bourgeois channels, whether we're talking about small business owners, the labour bureaucracy, whatever.


Marx would want te opposite. They are forced to compete against big business owners and franchises. I too work in a small business. Also, in a communist society we would have just one huge restaurant that distributes food to everyone. The small business's would strive in a communist society.

Did you mean to day "thrive"? I'm not trying to be snarky (for once), I know autocorrect sometimes goofs up and many people don't have English as a first language, but I'm trying to get some clarification because the sentence was unclear.

And if that was what you meant to say, then, well, no, there would be no enterprises in socialism, and when human society sets out to organise production, why would we forego the more materially-efficient methods of large-scale, mechanised industrial production in favour of small operations? It doesn't make sense.

[Rudolf]

Haha, well think about all the big restaurant and fast food franchises that we could be aiming at. The OP says his boss works along with him and does the same labor at times. Now I know that under socialism tha the boss would no longer be the boss, maybe moved down to manger, but we shouldn't act like these small business owners are the number one enemy for us.


This is just an appeal to their relative weakness compared to other capitalists. It's not a good argument. US/western capital is hegemonic but that doesn't mean you don't struggle against Russian capital when given the opportunity.

We are supposed to pick and choose our battles especially with a weak/non-existent workers movement but that doesn't mean ignoring class struggle against small business owners. Fighting for a better wage against your employer even if they're petit bourgeois is a good thing.

[YungTrev]

That's the only way to measure (economic) efficiency today. Or you could look at things like material throughput, where again, larger, more organised enterprises show themselves to be superior. Of course we don't care about economic efficiency; efficient capitalism, inefficient capitalism, they can all go to hell. Nonetheless, the fact remains that large-scale, global, objectively socialised production far surpasses, in material terms, anything local, small, "artisanal" (good grief) and so on, and the socialist society will be based on that. What we're going to do with the small businesses in the transitional period is an open question; it probably won't be a good move to immediately nationalise every tobacco shop but at the same time petty commodity production, particularly in a backward are of the world, is a powerful generator of capitalist relations.




Yes, small business owners are the pillars of the community.

But socialists don't want social peace and we don't want to uphold structures that channel the discontent with capitalism into peaceful, legal, essentially - bourgeois channels, whether we're talking about small business owners, the labour bureaucracy, whatever.



Did you mean to day "thrive"? I'm not trying to be snarky (for once), I know autocorrect sometimes goofs off and many people don't have English as a first language, but I'm trying to get some clarification because the sentence was unclear.

And if that was what you meant to say, then, well, no, there would be no enterprises in socialism, and when human society sets out to organise production, why would we forego the more materially-efficient methods of large-scale, mechanised industrial production in favour of small operations? It doesn't make sense.

Ha yes I did mean thrive! And I agree with you about the large industrial companies, maybe I was a little unclear about that. Let me explain better: In my opinion in a communist society (and even socialist) we would rid away the large businesses. We would then see what we call now small businesses all around producing goods for the people.

[YungTrev]

Also I mean we wouldn't have a huge restaurant, man auto correct made me sound so dumb.

[Scheveningen]

Under capitalism small shops can be worse than big workplaces because they have less capital to manage and because they may be too small for employees to organize effectively. As a rule, this means they will pay less, ask you to work more or do overtime more often, and offer less benefits.

Maybe their owners have to work hard, and maybe they struggle to make profits, but that doesn't make them allies. Not to mention that they are often idealized in political discourse (esp. by liberals and right-wing libertarians) as a form of good capitalism opposed to the bad corporations, as a way to distinguish between capitalists who 'work hard' and those who 'speculate' and magically make more money out of money, which weakens anti-capitalism as a whole.

No-one is saying that your boss can't be generous and a good guy. Oppression isn't about being evil: it's structural.


Petit-bourgeois is hardly comparable to the porky-bastard-CEOs. They really should make their business into a cooperative tho.
In a capitalist system, being in a cooperative really means that you can't go on strike even if your pay is shit (in the best case). Not an acceptable alternative.

[Rafiq]

After reading this thread through and thinking about it:

The way Random Joe runs his pizza restaurant is problematic from a revolutionary viewpoint. Indeed it is. However, I don't think small businesses are priority, and I still think that they are far not as bad as big burgeoisie.

Just summarizing stuff.

What does "bad" actually mean, however? In fact, the petite-bourgeoisie are greater practical adversaries to the proletariat, as they by default lead the proletariat into ruin for its own self-gain.

The big bourgeoisie, conversely, as a class encapsulates the ruling order - it is ("progressive") liberalism which is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, the ruling ideology. Conservatism, religious reaction are petite-bourgeois in nature. As capitalism regularly revolutionizes itself, the petite-bourgeoisie, tied to the old bonds of life forms the basis of reaction. Often times spontaneous working-class revolts against the ruling order are petite-bourgeois in nature, it is the easily-ready, default expression of the dissatisfaction of ordinary working people. This is not even limited to the native ethnic groups - popular narratives about the world in black communities are largely petite-bourgeois in nature, the damned look toward the muck of organizations like the nation of Islam, and organization of the black petite-bourgeoisie, and so on. Muslim immigrants in Europe and those working in slave-like conditions in the gulf states are susceptible to Islamism, again, a thoroughly petite-bourgeois ideology.

Kautsky tells us that the proletariat and the petite-bourgeoisie both oppose liberalism. But that the difference is that the proletariat conceives the achievements of liberalism as the presupposition to its own liberation, while the petite-bourgeoisie seeks to turn back the wheels of time (Nevermind seemingly liberal rhetoric, i.e. Libertarians, militias, etc.). We can approach globalization in the same manner, too.

Of course, the practical implications are very simple: We should be absolutely merciless to the petite-bourgeoisie: If Communists are going to break starbucks windows, they must be equally ready to break the windows of Joe's pizza shop. Why should we care that the petite-bourgeoisie will fall into the ranks of the proletariat? Why is this our insecurity? As it is with the common trope of the wealthy, or aristocratic children orphaned to join the ranks of the lower classes - we have absolutely no sympathy. The petite bourgeoisie are presently our greatest enemy: The big bourgeoisie is absolutely incapable of - and has no interest in - mobilizing masses of people. The petite-bourgeois ideologues wish to mass mobilize the working class, for that reason, they are our adversaries (as intellectuals).

To add, Communists should not oppose the increased socialization of labor. The petite-bourgeoisie does, rabidly. We oppose the philistinism of the small town, thoroughly. The big bourgeoisie gives us a huge state mediated bureaucratic-planning apparatus as the basis for Socialism, the petite-bourgeoisie gives us nothing but resistance. IF we smash the bourgeois state, the big bourgeoisie will most likely surrender. But the petite-bourgeoisie will form the basis of armed counter-revolution long after the big bourgeoisie surrenders.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ha yes I did mean thrive! And I agree with you about the large industrial companies, maybe I was a little unclear about that. Let me explain better: In my opinion in a communist society (and even socialist) we would rid away the large businesses. We would then see what we call now small businesses all around producing goods for the people.

For most of us, the socialist society and the communist society are two terms that refer to the same material reality - a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held in common and employed, according to a scientific plan, to produce for human need instead of profit. In socialism there is no market, no private ownership and no money; as such there can't be any sort of business in socialism. And as large-scale, mechanised production driven by the global flow of goods and services is more efficient in material terms than local, small and labour-intensive production, why would the socialist society forego it?

[Hatshepsut]

There is a reason why people burn small businesses down whenever there is a riot.

The kulaks were the closest parallel from the early Soviet Union. "Party stores" in Midwestern cities are known for price gouging, which may account for the broken glass there. Although in addition to Arabs, Pakistanis, & Koreans, some of the businesses are owned by blacks who aren't spared either.

But dekulakization went way too far in my estimate. When the dictatorship of the proletariat must resort to widespread use of terror, it shows that this dictatorship lacks confidence in its position, in its level of victory over its enemies. Overwhelming victors don't need to use much terror because no one doubts that they are in control, fully able to smash any opposition which may arise. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks didn't start out with a strong position and it took them a long time to obtain a decisive advantage in the class struggle. (If the revolution had spread to Germany, as it almost did in 1918-1920, things might have been different in the '30s, but this didn't happen.)

That's why I hope revolution can proceed from a more favorable balance of power in the social, ideological, economic, and military spheres. Then the need for violence to settle the class struggle will be reduced.

[ckaihatsu]

The small business owners should not be targeted, I think
Marx would want te opposite. They are forced to compete against big business owners and franchises. I too work in a small business. Also, in a communist society we would have just one huge restaurant that distributes food to everyone. The small business's would [thrive] in a communist society.





[T]here would be no enterprises in socialism, and when human society sets out to organise production, why would we forego the more materially-efficient methods of large-scale, mechanised industrial production in favour of small operations? It doesn't make sense.





For most of us, the socialist society and the communist society are two terms that refer to the same material reality - a classless, stateless society where the means of production are held in common and employed, according to a scientific plan, to produce for human need instead of profit. In socialism there is no market, no private ownership and no money; as such there can't be any sort of business in socialism. And as large-scale, mechanised production driven by the global flow of goods and services is more efficient in material terms than local, small and labour-intensive production, why would the socialist society forego it?


I think too much is made of the difference between *large-scale* (centralized), and *small-scale* (mom-and-pop), post-capitalism.

In other words, it's too dichotomized -- exaggerated into a false either-or situation. If centralization is to be *so* efficient, then wouldn't that *free up* many people from having to contribute to production *altogether* -- ?

Perhaps there's a fundamental social instinct going on when people express wanting to *staff* small shops and keep some semblance of localism going -- as ambivalent about such as I may happen to be, personally.

All we have to do is take a step back and ask, what would 'services' look like, post-capitalism -- ?

The 'centralization' faction (if you will) would be virtually *oblivious* to the 'last mile' issue, perhaps indicating that all should just make their own forays to a central-type *warehouse* of all products for selection, the endpoint of all (centralized) collectivized production.

But the 'decentralization' crowd appreciates the present-day benefits of localized (petty-bourgeois) production, meaning the individualized 'customer service' and 'shopkeeping' that is currently ubiquitous.

One could certainly invoke the 'free association' principle to argue for the continuation of some kind of *legitimate localism*, post-capitalism -- besides, what would 'services' (either of the 'customer service' type, or of a uniquely communist-type services-for-common-production) look like -- ?





Free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, a community of freely associated individuals) is a relationship among individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, and private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production enabling them to freely associate (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their individual and creative needs and desires. The term is used by anarchists and Marxists and is often considered a defining feature of a fully developed communist society.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(communism_and_anarchism)


Perhaps we can't just readily *dismiss* the localist argument on a facile either-or basis -- if much production is done efficiently, globally, through centralization, that might leave many to tend to *local* duties, in 'shopkeeping' kinds of ways, which would still be part of a post-exploitation production, even if seemingly 'inefficient' (though highly *personal*, which is the point).

I'll assert and maintain that any variance of opinion regarding this terrain is purely *philosophical* regarding societal composition, and cannot be fundamentally / ideologically defended on any *principled* basis.


---





[D]istinguish between capitalists who 'work hard' and those who 'speculate' and magically make more money out of money, which weakens anti-capitalism as a whole.


This *isn't* an immaterial distinction, though -- we might define these, respectively, as *equity capital* ('work-hard', productively / progressively), and that of *rentier capital* (gaining interest or rents on the simple ownership of capital).

Can an anti-capitalism oppose *both* -- ?

Absolutely.

[Hatshepsut]

Though negation of the private property concept is a Marxian universal, whether something is produced centrally or locally may depend on what's being made. If a socialist world has a pizza restaurant, it will have to be local. Nothing having to do with services is efficient: Indeed, the most "efficient" way of distributing food to people is simply to give them 25kg sacks of grain. :grin:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think too much is made of the difference between *large-scale* (centralized), and *small-scale* (mom-and-pop), post-capitalism.

In other words, it's too dichotomized -- exaggerated into a false either-or situation. If centralization is to be *so* efficient, then wouldn't that *free up* many people from having to contribute to production *altogether* -- ?

Yes, and that's the point. A global circulation of goods and objectively socialised industrial production frees human society from imposed labour. This means that human culture and creativity can flourish.


Perhaps there's a fundamental social instinct going on when people express wanting to *staff* small shops and keep some semblance of localism going -- as ambivalent about such as I may happen to be, personally.

All we have to do is take a step back and ask, what would 'services' look like, post-capitalism -- ?

The 'centralization' faction (if you will) would be virtually *oblivious* to the 'last mile' issue, perhaps indicating that all should just make their own forays to a central-type *warehouse* of all products for selection, the endpoint of all (centralized) collectivized production.

I don't know how it is where you live, but here, that already happens. When I want something, food for example, I'm more likely to go to a supermarket than a small shop. Why wouldn't I? We can ignore prices here as there would be no prices in socialism, but the selection of products in large shops is more extensive and they're more convenient (i.e. I don't have to buy milk in one shop, eggs in another, flour in yet another, and so on).

Besides, will shops in socialism even have people staffing them? For a period, most likely, they would, but I'm not sure if this is not simply another feature of capitalist society that will wither away in socialism. Nothing will cost anything in socialism so you don't need people to prevent theft; what is important is keeping strict accounting of what goes out from the store. But I think people can do that on their own, without cashiers.


But the 'decentralization' crowd appreciates the present-day benefits of localized (petty-bourgeois) production, meaning the individualized 'customer service' and 'shopkeeping' that is currently ubiquitous.

I don't think service in small shops is any more individual or personal than it is in large shops. That's certainly part of the mysticism, but in my experience it's not really true.


One could certainly invoke the 'free association' principle to argue for the continuation of some kind of *legitimate localism*, post-capitalism -- besides, what would 'services' (either of the 'customer service' type, or of a uniquely communist-type services-for-common-production) look like -- ?

The question is not if anyone would be prevented from opening a small shop or whatever (who would prevent them?) but whether people would want to, though.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, and that's the point. A global circulation of goods and objectively socialised industrial production frees human society from imposed labour. This means that human culture and creativity can flourish.



I don't know how it is where you live, but here, that already happens. When I want something, food for example, I'm more likely to go to a supermarket than a small shop. Why wouldn't I? We can ignore prices here as there would be no prices in socialism, but the selection of products in large shops is more extensive and they're more convenient (i.e. I don't have to buy milk in one shop, eggs in another, flour in yet another, and so on).

Besides, will shops in socialism even have people staffing them? For a period, most likely, they would, but I'm not sure if this is not simply another feature of capitalist society that will wither away in socialism. Nothing will cost anything in socialism so you don't need people to prevent theft; what is important is keeping strict accounting of what goes out from the store. But I think people can do that on their own, without cashiers.



I don't think service in small shops is any more individual or personal than it is in large shops. That's certainly part of the mysticism, but in my experience it's not really true.



The question is not if anyone would be prevented from opening a small shop or whatever (who would prevent them?) but whether people would want to, though.


Yeah, I see all of this as being more of a 'societal-philosophical' open-ended question, rather than being pre-emptively definitive, from theory.

Of course centralization should be implemented at the greatest scales possible for *production*, but we seem to be talking about *distribution* here -- sure, there's nothing wrong with the 'warehouse' approach, but what about the driverless cars also transporting that order from the warehouse over the last mile directly to your door -- ? Or maybe drones, or a network of underground conveyor belts, or by air-cannon, etc....

For some perhaps 'culture and creativity' would be them tending a "store" / "shop", and lending their expertise -- regarding food combinations or whatever -- as the case arises, with the recipient.

[BIXX]

Though negation of the private property concept is a Marxian universal, whether something is produced centrally or locally may depend on what's being made. If a socialist world has a pizza restaurant, it will have to be local. Nothing having to do with services is efficient: Indeed, the most "efficient" way of distributing food to people is simply to give them 25kg sacks of grain. :grin:

Proposal: lower the size of the grain sacks 20%, announce that out food storage has increased rapidly this year.

[Jacob Cliff]

t is ("progressive") liberalism which is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, [I]the ruling ideology. Conservatism, religious reaction are petite-bourgeois in nature.Kautsky tells us that the proletariat and the petite-bourgeoisie both oppose liberalism. But that the difference is that the proletariat conceives the achievements of liberalism as the presupposition to its own liberation, while the petite-bourgeoisie seeks to turn back the wheels of time (Nevermind seemingly liberal rhetoric, i.e. Libertarians, militias, etc.). We can approach globalization in the same manner, too.

But how is "liberalism" the ideology of the haute-bourgeoisie, and conservatism that of the petty-bourgeoisie? If by "liberalism" you mean the American use of the term (i.e., something along the lines of self-critical capitalism/capitalism with regulations and a social safety net), I'm not sure at all how this is the haute-bourgeoisie's ideology. It would seem more logical that they would be conservative, as they wish to conserve their power and status. Or, possibly even "libertarian" -- it's that ideology, after all, that seeks to strip capitalism of all social regulation and open the door to freer and less regulated markets and, consequently, higher profits for capitalists.

Or do you mean by liberalism the same liberalism of Adam Smith and David Ricardo -- one which, today at least, one may term as "libertarianism?"

Also, as a side question: when Marxists like yourself use "bourgeois" and "petty bourgeois," are you directly referring to their class or are you referring to interests which align with that particular class?

To put that more simply: is a person "petty bourgeois" because he owns a small business & works it or because his interests reflect the interests of the petty bourgeois class? Or could it pertain to both? Using this, could one call a working-class supporter of the libertarian party "petty-bourgeois" even if he doesn't belong to the petty-bourgeois class?

[Rafiq]

But how is "liberalism" the ideology of the haute-bourgeoisie, and conservatism that of the petty-bourgeoisie? If by "liberalism" you mean the American use of the term (i.e., something along the lines of self-critical capitalism/capitalism with regulations and a social safety net), I'm not sure at all how this is the haute-bourgeoisie's ideology. It would seem more logical that they would be conservative, as they wish to conserve their power and status.

Conserve their status amidst what? I speak of the haute-haute bourgeoisie, not the narrow-minded dwarfs of industry. We are in an imperialist epoch - it is the financial oligarchy, trusts, which hold the power today. So this is the point - when I say liberalism, I even mean the American use of the term: Social liberalism. As for "economic liberalism", this is provisional and contingent upon conditions. Bill Clinton was an American liberal and not a reactionary (i.e. not a conservative) and yet his economic policies were "liberal" in the European sense.

Conservatives react to authentic developments. That is why they regularly change: A conservative in 2015 will greatly differ in their views from a conservative in 1950. Today, conservatives are forced to acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr. as American heroes, renounce racism, presuppose women's suffrage as a right, and so on. Reactionaries are opportunists by nature. Liberalism is a bourgeois ideology by default. Even conservatives in the US must presuppose liberal principles, while conservatives in Europe vary (usually critical of modernism in some ways).


Or do you mean by liberalism the same liberalism of Adam Smith and David Ricardo -- one which, today at least, one may term as "libertarianism?"

One can't call that libertarianism. Libertarianism, like Fascism, is a new phenomena, it has no basis in authentic historical events. That is to say, Adam Smith was just as much a libertarian as Augustus was an Italian Fascist. Libertarianism is a perversion of the values of the counter-culture just as Fascism was of early 20th century Socialism.


Also, as a side question: when Marxists like yourself use "bourgeois" and "petty bourgeois," are you directly referring to their class or are you referring to interests which align with that particular class

Marx:

Only one must not get the narrow-minded notion that the petty bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest. Rather, it believes that the special conditions of its emancipation are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided. Just as little must one imagine that the democratic representatives are indeed all shopkeepers or enthusiastic champions of shopkeepers. According to their education and their individual position they may be as far apart as heaven and earth. What makes them representatives of the petty bourgeoisie is the fact that in their minds they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent.

The logic of direct-representation, or class interests being bare, cynical egoistic interests, are vulgar and alien to Marxism. We do not qualify things on this basis, and it depends as far as what we're referring to. Of course the disparity is seen on the economic level, but that does not mean every petite-bourgeois INDIVIDUAL is a reactionary, it means the petite-bourgeoisie as a class is reactionary.


To put that more simply: is a person "petty bourgeois" because he owns a small business & works it or because his interests reflect the interests of the petty bourgeois class? Or could it pertain to both? Using this, could one call a working-class supporter of the libertarian party "petty-bourgeois" even if he doesn't belong to the petty-bourgeois class?

You answer it yourself: Both. The point is that for those individuals whose interests "reflect the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie as a class", the basis of this interest is in "those who own small businesses and work in them." One could call a working-class libertarian a petite-bourgeois ideologue, but when referring to his social relationships to production, he is a proletarian. He just is not a conscious one - he thus serves the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie. So it depends on what we're talking about: His IDEAS or his social being?

[Invader Zim]

They are enemies of autonomy. I don't want to "nationalize" (or socialize) their business, I want to remove it from the face of the earth.

Pizza is the enemy of choice.

[Jacob Cliff]

We are in an imperialist epoch - it is the financial oligarchy, trusts, which hold the power today. So this is the point - when I say liberalism, I even mean the American use of the term: Social liberalism.

But why are the big bankers are the financial oligarchs of our epoch lenient towards "social liberalism"? Social Liberalism, as understood by most people, sees the "big banks" and "corporations" as evil, and many of these social liberals stand to break up the power of the largest banks and corporations. I'm really not following how this class of people is inherently biased towards this ideology -- I thought this would be the last group of people to oppose such an ideology?

[Црвена]

But why are the big bankers are the financial oligarchs of our epoch lenient towards "social liberalism"? Social Liberalism, as understood by most people, sees the "big banks" and "corporations" as evil, and many of these social liberals stand to break up the power of the largest banks and corporations. I'm really not following how this class of people is inherently biased towards this ideology -- I thought this would be the last group of people to oppose such an ideology?

What legislation has ever been passed by the Democratic Party which genuinely was to the detriment of bankers? There's a difference between the rhetoric of the proponents of a certain ideology and their policy once they get into power. Also, more centrist Democrats tend to have more influence, some of whom are not extremely liberal in the American sense of the word (but most certainly are in the European sense).

[Rafiq]

But why are the big bankers are the financial oligarchs of our epoch lenient towards "social liberalism"? Social Liberalism, as understood by most people, sees the "big banks" and "corporations" as evil, and many of these social liberals stand to break up the power of the largest banks and corporations.

No, that's economic left liberalism (In the American sense of "Liberalism"). Often times people will say they are "fiscally conservative" but "socially liberal" (for abortion, etc.)

Social liberals do not speak of "big banks" and "corporations". In fact, this is vague rhetoric - it is not social liberals as such who say this, but a broad spectrum of people, from petite-bourgeois libertarians (Ron Paul, Alex Jones, etc.), religious fundamentalists, reactionaries, and so on.

A rudimentary analysis of political discourse allows one to see this. Europe encapsulates this better: In Europe, the reactionaries, the social conservatives are generally also protectionists and favor populist economic policies, a la Putin. Big bankers and financial oligarchs have no quarrel with social liberalism, because social liberalism is the breath and air of modern capitalist society. Corporations and big businesses are the first to jump on any "progressive" bandwagon, be it feminism, environmental concerns, and so on. Just look at what happened with Gamergate - it was the big companies who sided with the progressives against the reactionaries. I remember seeing at a friends house how MTV was, in a commercial that they themselves made, informing viewers that another young black male was gunned down by the police.

Communists do not oppose the progressive bourgeoisie when they strike down the petite-bourgeois reaction. But the character of bourgeois feminism, "anti-racism" and so on will always be reactionary if it is juxtaposed to Communism. Juxtaposed to social conservatism, however, they are worthy of defense. I mean, just think for a second. Think about companies like Apple, think about Starbucks, do these strike you as socially conservative entities, in your mind? They represent the legacy of the counter-culture. But they are not, and can never ON THEIR OWN be authentically progressive, for they will always inevitably be betrayed by their own self-limitations.

It is difficult to speak on this today, however, for the growing dominant ideology of the big bourgeoisie, as shown by the Californian Ideology, a book I highly recommend for any Communist, appears to be dark enlightenment.


I'm really not following how this class of people is inherently biased towards this ideology -- I thought this would be the last group of people to oppose such an ideology?

It has nothing to do with "bias". Bias is a nonsensical and bankrupt, postmodern notion, we should viciously oppose it.

[Antiochus]

Yeah, Rafiq is correct in saying that (at least in the U.S) liberalism is the default ideology. So, even in this Red (Republican :lol:) shithole of Orange County that I live in, everyone, even the most rabid conservative, at least in public, espouses liberalism. So, they think women should be educated, that they should vote, they think gays are "people too", they denounce overt racism and they think that an "egalitarian society" is good.

But all of this is just rhetoric. These same people support an institutional government and economic system that would, in a heartbeat, 'revoke' those rights for the simple purpose of re-establishing ideological control (more so than now).

Which is why you have monkeys like Ron Paul being so popular in universities across the U.S, even though he thinks the healthcare system and the educational system are perfectly fine, i.e paying 30k a year for a degree.

Alex Jones is another asshole. He brought Noam Chomsky to his radio show and they both basically agreed on everything, which makes you wonder where Chomsky really stands, and then had a "fall" because of 'gun rights' (Jones taking the 2nd amendment stance).

What I would like to know however, is why exactly the petite-bourgeoisie are predisposed to reaction? I would think, logically, they would be for a more progressive liberalism since it would permit them to progress forward in the river of capital. Also, wouldn't the French Revolution, essentially, be a petite-bourgeoisie one?

[Hatshepsut]

What legislation has ever been passed by the Democratic Party which genuinely was to the detriment of bankers?

Under Democrats, regulating the houses of money capital has usually involved horizontal shifts from "losing" bankers to their "winner" colleagues in other branches of the financial industry. President Obama secured closure of investment banking's access to FDIC-insured funds when he took office after Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers collapsed in the 2008 crisis. In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt created the Federal Home Loan Bank Board privileging a new type of institution, the Savings & Loan, over commercial banks which had formerly written home mortgages.

So, we indeed see those ragtag armies of bankers in tragic career demise, forced by nasty Democrats to retire aboard their yachts in the Caribbean after having looted billions of dollars from the nation's economy and government. Whereupon they sail to the Cayman Islands and make deposits in, what other than anonymous numbered bank accounts! Ahh...Socialism overruns our fair land. :rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

What I would like to know however, is why exactly the petite-bourgeoisie are predisposed to reaction? I would think, logically, they would be for a more progressive liberalism since it would permit them to progress forward in the river of capital. Also, wouldn't the French Revolution, essentially, be a petite-bourgeoisie one?

The petite-bourgeoisie are predisposed toward reaction primarily because they are most susceptible to fall victim to big capital (competition with monopolies too) and finance (debt, foreclosure), as well as the fact that while capitalism regularly revolutionizes the means of production, the petite-bourgeoisie are usually not equipped with the capital or means to keep "updated" with the spirit of the times, so they are regularly a class threatened to extinction, and regularly must be reborn.

During the French revolution, the Sans-culottes might qualify as "petite-bourgeois" but as an artisianal class, they, like the Chinese peasants doomed to eventual extinction, were just a transitional class. They would go on to join the ranks of the French ouveiers, the proto-proletariat. That is why during hte conspiracy of the equals, which eventually garnered a lot of support from the ouviers of Paris, praised the legacy of hte Sans-Cullotes.

Conditions at this time did not set in where the petty bourgeoisie could assume a reactionary role, because the general conflict between classes in post-ancien regime capitalist society (i.e. between the proletariat, and so on) did not set in at the time.