Owning your own business will achieve communism!

[Cobra]

I have finally figured out how to achieve communism. Open your own business, and don’t hire anyone. If everyone owned their own business…communism will be achieved.

But isn’t this exploiting the masses? Only if people are hired to work for the businesses. If the only people working for the businesses are the people who own them then nobody would be exploited.

Of course, this would mean the death of the modern factory. But screw factories. Working in a factory is boring and lacks pride and creativity. A system based on actual skill would be much more rewarding to the human spirit.

I’ll give a theoretical example of what I’m talking about:

Let’s imagine that there is a village of 11 people (a very small village, to keep it simple). In this village there is a farmer, a fisherman, a blacksmith, a miner, a chef, a woodcutter, a house builder, a furniture builder, a silkworm rancher, a knitter, and a boat builder.

-The farmer grows vegetables and sells them to the chef.

-The fisherman catches fish and sells them to the chef.

-The blacksmith makes tools to sell to the woodcutter, the house builder, the boat builder, the furniture builder, the miner, and the chef.

-The miner mines ore and sells it to the blacksmith

-The chef cooks fish and vegetables and sells breakfast lunch and dinner to all of the villagers.

-The woodcutter chops down trees in the forest and sells wood to the chef, the house builder, the boat builder, and the furniture builder.

-The house builder builds houses and sells them to all the villagers.

-The furniture builder makes furniture to sell to all the villagers, makes wooden tool handles to sell to the blacksmith, and makes knitting wheels to sell to the knitter.

-The silkworm rancher raises silkworms and sells silk to the knitter.

-The knitter makes silk clothing to sell to all the villagers and makes silk fishing line to sell to the fisherman.

-The boat builder builds boats and fishing rods to sell to the fisherman.

Each member of the village owns their own business and hires no one. Each person sells only that which his or her labour came into contact with. The result of which is communism, as one can easily see. :)

[RedAnarchist]

That sounds really feasible, although i'm sure RS2000 or someone more learned than me will find some fundamental flaw or even a tiny little flaw.

How would this work in a big city or in a place where there may be noone doing a certain job?

[cph_shawarma]

I have finally figured out how to achieve communism. Open your own business, and don’t hire anyone. If everyone owned their own business…communism will be achieved.
Nope, that would not be communism. It would be simple commodity production, an antiquated mode of production (which to some extent exists still today). It would be a quite reactionary step to try to wind history back to the beginning of capitalism. Communism must abolish commodities, as it is a part of capital in its totality.


But isn’t this exploiting the masses? Only if people are hired to work for the businesses. If the only people working for the businesses are the people who own them then nobody would be exploited.
It would be self-exploitation, it would be workers' capitalism (as is practiced in parts of Argentina, for example).

Your example displays in great clarity that this certainly is an antiquated mode of production. And most of all the constant talk of "selling" has the premise of exchange and commodity production. This is the origins of capital (see Capital Vol. 1) and can not be the basis for a communist society, for which we do not know the positive characteristics. We can only know that communism is not capitalism, nor simple commodity production.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by XPhile2868+--> (XPhile2868) How would this work in a big city[/b]
If such a system were in place I doubt if there would be any big cities. The fuel that keeps a big city alive is its massive quantities of “human resources”. Once humans choose to quit being resources, managers (which would then be everyone) would need to look to the countryside for the materials they need. Moving to the countryside people would naturally clump together into many small villages where many natural resources exist.


[How would this work] in a place where there may be noone doing a cetain job?
Everyone would need to have at least one skill if everyone is to have their own business. If someone didn’t have any skills they could get one by observing a skilled person. Just through observation and mimicking the unskilled people could learn everything they need to know from the skilled people and become skilled enough to start their own businesses.


cph_shawarma
Nope, that would not be communism.
I disagree. Workers control the means of production and there is no hierarchy. Therefore, it is communism.

[OleMarxco]

In the buisness, yes, but not in the society. How do you prevent a capitalist-led buisness driving you out of buisness? The state will still be capitalistic, and will try to crush these "communistic driven"-buisnesses of worker collectives! They hate that workers get really rights :D

[Bolshevist]

Would there be enough capital for everyone to open their own buisness? :unsure:

[comrade_mufasa]

Even if it would help bring communism, which it dosnt, it would collapse anyway. Just think if there were 30 bread makers. Some of them would not be as good others meaning they would fall out of the system from lack of customers. Then some others would not know what the hell they are doing so they would fall out becouse of the bad business chooses.

[Monty Cantsin]

i agree with cph_shawarma you're plan is highly reactionary, as Marxists being critical of modernity doesnt mean we become anti-modern, what you describe is what Marx called Crude communism for difference reason and is not a progressive development.

[Black Dagger]

Each member of the village owns their own business and hires no one. Each person sells only that which his or her labour came into contact with. The result of which is communism, as one can easily see

What happens when someone goes 'out of business' and they have to work for another person in the village? Moreover, communism involves a revolution in social ideas and philosophy, there's nothing in this 'communist' society that says it will be anti-racist/homophobic/sexist and so forth, and nothing about how broader decisions are made, does this 'village' have a council? And besides, The idea that everyone can own and run their own business sounds highly inefficient. Some things needs mass-effort, ie. factories, to be produced, something that individual workers cannot create on their own.

[cph_shawarma]

Cobra: Communism abolishes the workers, it is classless. "Workers' control of the means of production" is simply workers' capitalism. This type of production does not work very well. Only the abolition of commodities, value etc. (as the result of the abolition of capital in its totality) can result in a communist society. This abolition is constant & ongoing (the real communist movement), but must at some point take a qualitative step in abolishing capitalist society.

http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html is a great introduction to communism.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are workers co-operatives that exist in the UK, so your idea about radicals owning a business is not wholly ridiciulous.

[NovelGentry]

Your business will go out of business unless you hire workers. There's no way you can compete with the existing capitalists unless you're on their level. If it was possible under capitalism for everyone to achieve what you propose (for everyone to be a boss), we couldn't really claim inequality, could we?

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2005, 11:27 AM
There are workers co-operatives that exist in the UK, so your idea about radicals owning a business is not wholly ridiciulous.
The problem with those seem to be that they must function under capitalism, I know of several worker-run buisnesses that has been destroyed over issues such as letting some workers go when the times in industry is bad.

[Cobra]

Valid points about my “highly reactionary” plan. However, I still see it as a good alternative to capitalism, or at least the form of capitalism we have now. I’d much rather work under “workers capitalism” than bourgeoisie capitalism.


Originally posted by OleMarxo+--> (OleMarxo) How do you prevent a capitalist-led buisness driving you out of buisness? The state will still be capitalistic, and will try to crush these "communistic driven"-buisnesses of worker collectives! [/b]
You prevent it with the barrel of your rifle.


Originally posted by Lenin i Stalin+--> (Lenin i Stalin) Would there be enough capital for everyone to open their own buisness? [/b]
I don’t think it’s a matter of there being enough capital. It’s more a matter of moving the existing capital away from huge corporations and into the hands of the workers.


Originally posted by Monty Cantsin
as Marxists being critical of modernity doesnt mean we become anti-modern
I’m not a Marxist. I’m an anarchist. And so are many members of this forum. Secondly, “Modern” mass production lines will inevitably create hierarchies. Only through small scale methods of production can hierarchy be eliminated.


Originally posted by Black Dagger
What happens when someone goes 'out of business' and they have to work for another person in the village?
As long as there is a demand for that someone’s skill, that someone would stay in business. If there no longer is a demand for that skill, then the worker could develop a skill that there is a demand for and start a new business.

Basically, the worker could be “apprenticed” to a “master” who would teach the worker a new skill. During this time, the “master” would provide the “apprentice” with food, water, and housing. Such an "apprenticeship" would be completely voluntary and non-permanent.


communism involves a revolution in social ideas and philosophy, there's nothing in this 'communist' society that says it will be anti-racist/homophobic/sexist and so forth
Every village would need to continue to develop themselves culturally. Every one of us would be/are responsible for this continual cultural advancement.


does this 'village' have a council?
I am against there being a council since a council is a form of hierarchy. If all forms of hierarchy are to be eliminated, all councils would need to be eliminated as well.


[email protected]
http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html is a great introduction to communism.
That’s a good introduction to ‘why living under capitalism sucks’, but it is not a good introduction to communism. Just fighting capitalism does not = communism. If that were true then many fascist groups would be communist, since they want to destroy capitalism and replace it with slavery. Before anyone fights anything they should at least have some idea as to what they are fighting for, which that introduction neglects to talk about.


NovelGentry
Your business will go out of business unless you hire workers. There's no way you can compete with the existing capitalists unless you're on their level.
That’s like saying that Cuba can’t compete with the United States because it is not “on their level”. The quality of anything that is handmade or grown organically is greater than things that are mass produced. We can’t beat them in terms of numbers, but we can beat them in terms of quality.

[RevolutionaryLeftist]

dude it would never work man. things may be better if they are hand made, but by production standards of today everything would fall behind. there are tons of reasons why owning your own business and not hiring anybody wouldn't achieve communism. what you propose in a sense would make it communism. but thats not how its going to be achieved. plus how the fuck are you gonna put microsoft outta business? you just can't compete with the capitalists unless you have numbers too.

[Don't Change Your Name]

If I'm a hairstylist and I buy/open a whatever-the-name-of-the-hair-shops-is-in-in-english, and I hire nobody and I am in charge of cutting people's hair, it's not "evil" since i exploit nobody and nobody exploits me.

There's nothing wrong with that.

[More Fire for the People]

It does not take a theorist as good as Mr. Red Star to point out the flaws in your theory, the obvious one being the use of money. Your ideology is nothing more petit-bourgeous communalism.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by Rotmutter
It does not take a theorist as good as Mr. Red Star to point out the flaws in your theory, the obvious one being the use of money.
The use of money is not a flaw. If money was abolished and all work became voluntary then the people doing the work would end up being exploited by the people not doing anything. Whether you want to admit or not, money helps to motivate people to work. Most people would rather do something and get paid for it than do something and not get paid anything for it.

Also, using money is a much more efficient form of trade than bartering goods. Money, unlike a bartering good, can be traded with any person. Money, unlike food goods, does not spoil. It is lightweight and easy to carry.

I can see no reason for money to be abolished.

[RedStarOverChina]

what u offered is a barter system...u have that in every primitive economical environment.

I find ur society remarkablly similar with a fable of a italian writer.

In the beginning, he wrote, no one was poor and no one was rich. But in this society, everyone is a thief. each thief would steal from the house next to his at night. But when he returns home he would find his own belongings stolen by the neighbour from the previous house...The process repeats every day until one day, one thief realized he should get better protection against theft. From that time on he who learned to protect himselve while stealing from the one next door prospered, while the one living in the previous house got poorer and poorer because he cant steal from his next door neighbor. Consequently HIS neighbour living in the previous house got poorer; then HIS neighbour got poorer... so on and so forth---so now we have rich and poor.

Just like in the story, people in ur society will get rich or get poor, whether they have a bartering system or a cash-product exchange system.



A socialist economy is much more advanced than that. In the perceivable future, a socialist economy will guarantee ALL the essentials(food, shelter, education, transportation, blah blah blah) needed by the people to be supplied by state(or community). I believe currency will be used for a long period of time (in the form of credit tho), for the exchange of unneccessary but wanted products.

No one is sure whats gonna happen in a communist society. Tho I consider the guiding principals of Marxism to be correct, I doubt anyone would be able to tell what exactly is gonna happen in a communist society. However the economical freedom of individuals will be further limited to protect human right and the freedom of ALL other sort.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina
In the perceivable future, a socialist economy will guarantee ALL the essentials(food, shelter, education, transportation, blah blah blah) needed by the people to be supplied by state(or community).
“ALL the essentials” take much time and work to be produced. You’re suggesting that some people should work to supply others with these essentials, while others do not do any work at all. This system would be a system of exploitation and would be little better than our current one. The lazy people who don’t do any work would be the equivalent of aristocrats, while the people supplying most the labour would become the exploited workers. You would be recreating the current system, but under a different title.

[cph_shawarma]

Cobra: I write for people who are willing to learn and who don't just discard arguments without anything to put up against it.

I am not a utopist, that's why I don't put up how a society would work, even if certain positive characteristics have been shown in the revolutionary experiences of 1848, 1871, 1917-20, 1953, 1956 and 1968. Most of all it has a definite liberating motive, which we can trace the origins to the romantic era.

"We're living in a disenchanted world, do something about it!"

[Cobra]

I think you misunderstood me. I am not trying to criticize anyone. I find that through debate I am able to gain a better understanding of things. I respect you and all members of this forum.

Please refute anything I’ve said that you disagree with.

[Cobra]

Sorry, I didn’t realize it when I posted, but I think you were responding to what I said about the website you mentioned. I thought the website was too vague when explaining what exactly communism is.

If you could, please give a theoretical model of a true communist society. That would be very helpful. :)

[Rasta Sapian]

Cobra you are on the right track towards a utilitarian, quasi-socialist society.

The move will have to be made from the masses dwelling in the cities to the country where agriclutural and earth resources can be utilized to produce needed tools and labour.

However, it takes more than one person to produce a civilization and technology for the future, it will take the union of brothers and sisters alike to build it together, working for the all of the society, a society of equality, where the bread is shared with the fish and the carpenter builds the table. This is our path towards Utopia my friend

[Colombia]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 26 2005, 06:07 PM
The move will have to be made from the masses dwelling in the cities to the country where agriclutural and earth resources can be utilized to produce needed tools and labour.


In what type of country are we talking about here? A country advanced like the USA or in a poorer country such as Colombia?

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:40 AM
If you could, please give a theoretical model of a true communist society. That would be very helpful.
There isn't any "theoretical" model of a true communist society. First of all it would be highly anti-theoretical to put up such a model, second of all it's not possible. What has been shown in the different revolutions I gave as examples have been certain (definitely not all) characteristics of a revolutionary society (but still no society can provide a positive definition of modern communism).

Most important of all people became much less alienated from eachother and themselves, production was slowed down and a "material human community" started to spire, to speak with Bordiga.

We can not say what we don't know and since communism isn't an ideology, but a real movement, we don't have to.