Small Businesses: Don't They Exploit Too?

[Red Terror Doctor]

That is how capitalism started with these small affairs that grew over the decades into giant enterprises. So all this talk that Castro or communism doesn't let the worker open his own business is bullsh_t.

[Lenin II]

While it is certainly true that small businesses in the capitalist system are exploitive by nature, the small business is soon to be a thing of the past. Globalization, corporatism and brand names are taking over the world. In fact, small business owners are frequently bankrupted by large companies and absorbed into the proletariat, thus hopefully losing their faith in the capitalist system and the lie of the "American Dream" overnight. This is happening more and more, exactly as Marx predicted.

[Dros]

Of course most small businesses are exploitative. But they are not as explotative as corporations and as was pointed out, they are being eaten by capitalism. Thus, it is possible that lower strata of the petty bourgoisie could be revolutionary.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Who do mom and pop shops exploit exactly? Their kids?

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:08 pm
Who do mom and pop shops exploit exactly? Their kids?
Yeah, and their few employees.

These businessmen are called the "petty Bourgeoisie".

[SocialistMilitant]

Who do my local bodegas exploit? Is the owner of my local bodega a capitalist bloodsucker? LOL These guys are barely getting by on that shitty business.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All establishments where the workers don't democratically operate their surroundings is exploitation. Granted this is from a social perspective and not entirely conclusive from just observations: certain small businesses like to treat their work force properly. This is often the result of small business owners having a direct relationship with their work force and actually performing some intensive labor.

Small business owners suffer at the hand of big capitalists. While they certainly aren't revolutionary they too have the world to win.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 23, 2007 02:23 am
While it is certainly true that small businesses in the capitalist system are exploitive by nature, the small business is soon to be a thing of the past. Globalization, corporatism and brand names are taking over the world. In fact, small business owners are frequently bankrupted by large companies and absorbed into the proletariat, thus hopefully losing their faith in the capitalist system and the lie of the "American Dream" overnight. This is happening more and more, exactly as Marx predicted.
Provide evidence.

If anything, the number of small businesses has increased.

For example, when looking at Australia - a fairly advanced capitalist country, the following statistics are interesting:


At June 2006, there were 807,581 (41.1%) employing businesses and 1,156,326 (58.9%) non-employing businesses.

The majority of employing businesses, 721,569 (89.3%) employed less than 20 employees as at June 2006. This comprised 494,196 (68.5%) businesses with 1-4 employees and 227,373 (31.5%) businesses with 5-19 employees. There were also 80,215 (9.9%) employing businesses with 20 to 199 employees and 5,797 (<1%) employing businesses with 200+ employees.

The survival rates for businesses operating since June 2003 varied significantly between the employing (87.3%) and the non-employing (53.8%) populations. In addition, for employing businesses, survival rates were slightly higher for businesses employing between 5-19 employees (90.4%) and 20-199 employees (90.2%).

In the period June 2005-06, entry rates were higher for non-employing businesses (18.4%) and business employing 1-4 employees (16.8%). Conversely, entry rates for businesses employing five or more employees were at noticeably lower levels. Exit rates over the same period were highest for non-employing businesses (18.2%) and businesses employing 1-4 employees (12.2%), but were lowest for businesses employing between 20-199 staff (6.1%). Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Business Demography (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/39433889d406eeb9ca2570610019e9a5/4b58cf00cd15574fca25728b000ceede&#33;OpenDocument)

Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to find statistics which compare the number of self-employed or small businesses a century ago. However, I would think that it would be reasonable to argue that small business has grown. Firstly, the advent of the internet and communication technology allows businesses to be run from home. Secondly, the increased availability of loan capital. Here are statistics to prove the increase in the number of businesses ran from home:


In June 2004 there were 1,660,000 operators of the 1,269,000 non-agricultural small businesses in Australia. Home based businesses make up a very large proportion of the total small business population in Australia. At June 2004, it was estimated that 67.5% of all small businesses were home based, compared to 58.3% in February 1997. [That was just 7 years difference&#33;] These businesses were operated by 1,040,000 people, representing 62.6% of all small business operators. This reflected annual increases in the proportions of home based businesses and operators, 1.0 and 0.5 percentage points respectively. Characteristics of Small Business, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/E49E3B4DC3595C92CA2568A900139377?Open)

So, small business has not become a thing of the past.

In fact, its scope is increasing.

Whether larger corporations will absorb smaller businesses is yet to be seen.

[Noah]

How about those that are solely self employed and use only their own labor? Artists, craftsmen etc. I think it&#39;s wrong to label them petty bourgeoise.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:33 pm
How about those that are solely self employed and use only their own labor? Artists, craftsmen etc. I think it&#39;s wrong to label them petty bourgeoise.
I think those people are considered artisans rather than businessmen.

Are they petty bourgeosie? Depends on the situation.

[BobKKKindle$]

If workers are paid less than the value of their labour power and a capitalist is able to assert control of workers&#39; products, then exploitation exists. However, small business owners generally assume an important role in the production process and commercial transactions and as such are not parasitic in the same way that the owners of large corporations, who generally do not have a knowledge of and bear no direct relation to production, are. Like proletarians, small business owners face the continual threat of hardship should their business fail, and as such have interests similar to the working class, and so should be considered potential allies.

Generally, however, these firms will only exist for a short period of time, because unless they are able to grow in size and assume a more powerful position in the market for their goods, they will be unable to withstand the competition of larger corporations and so the owner(s) will be forced to return to wage-labour as their primary means of sustenance. I do not think Marx intended to suggest that these firms would not cease to exist, in that people would stop trying to start their own enterprises, rather, he meant that any individual would only assume the class status of a Petty-bourgeois (not including professionals) for a short time and would, depending on the outcome of the enterprise, return to the proletariat or become a capitalist.

There are however, exceptions. Some consumers, particularly those living in a small and integrated community, enjoy a more personal relationship with those that provide basic goods such as foodstuffs, and as such choose to purchase from small, family-owned shops. This enables such firms to survive for long periods of time despite the challenges I noted above.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Small business owners are exploited by the bourgeoisie just as the proletariat. They are threatened by failure as they are subject to the bourgeoisie&#39;s ownership of the means of production.

Small business owners have very little "control" they may own a small business but they are generally subject to bourgeois control of the modes of production. Ultimately, they are exploited by the bourgeoisie, though in some cases they are an instrument of the bourgeois class for the purpose of managing production of commodities.

However, ultimately what determines their role is not that they are involved in this process but their relation to the modes of production which ultimately determines their involvement in the first place. i.e. small business owners and the petit-bourgeoisie are still subject to bourgeois control of the modes of production. They are just instruments aiding the production of bourgeois capital through the production and transfer of commodities.

They don&#39;t necessarily have control over this, they are exploited by it just as proletarians are as it is ultimately necessary for them to sustain this relation as they are dependent on the small amount they earn (which is not the profit attained from the production of a commodity- because they are a means of bringing the commodity into existence, they don&#39;t own it.

However, they are exploited through this relation just as the proletariat in that the little amount they are paid for managing the forces which bring commodities into existence is not comparable to the value of the commodity itself- because they don&#39;t receive the value of the commodity. They don&#39;t gain capital from it, however, in this regard, they are alienated from this act of "managing" just as the proletariat is alienated from the act of labour in regard to production of commodities.

It seems logical that they are not merely exploitive in regards to their own nature but in regard to being an instrument of the bourgeois ruling class, which ultimately the small business owners do not control their relation to. They may manage the production/transfer of commodities but they do not have ownership of these commodities and therefore they don&#39;t have ownership of the capital produced by the commodities.

Their role is to manage the production of commodities which the bourgeoisie owns though its control of the modes of production. So, ultimately, small business owners are still subject to the conditions of bourgeois society and their interests are much more common with the interests of the proletariat than the bourgeoisie as they are too exploited by the same conditions as the proletariat is.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:35 pm
Who do my local bodegas exploit? Is the owner of my local bodega a capitalist bloodsucker? LOL These guys are barely getting by on that shitty business.
The surplus value -- the wealth that the workers produce but do not receive back in the form of wages, inlcudes the employer&#39;s profits -- but it also includes the employer&#39;s wholesale suppliers&#39; profits, the employer&#39;s taxes, advertising expenses, rental expenses, insurance premiums, brokerage commissions, etc. To have parasites on top of other parasites is a feature of capitalism.

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by mikelepore+November 23, 2007 08:16 am--> (mikelepore &#064; November 23, 2007 08:16 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 07:35 pm
Who do my local bodegas exploit? Is the owner of my local bodega a capitalist bloodsucker? LOL These guys are barely getting by on that shitty business.
The surplus value -- the wealth that the workers produce but do not receive back in the form of wages, inlcudes the employer&#39;s profits -- but it also includes the employer&#39;s wholesale suppliers&#39; profits, the employer&#39;s taxes, advertising expenses, rental expenses, insurance premiums, brokerage commissions, etc. To have parasites on top of other parasites is a feature of capitalism. [/b]
The bodega across the street from me has various owners. In fact, the real owner (the father) is retired in Dominican Republic and has left the small bodega to his 3 sons which work there and they are the only ones working there. They all get an equal cut of everything.

Edit: Mind you that&#39;s just one example, but I&#39;m just saying.

[BobKKKindle$]

Small business owners have very little "control" they may own a small business but they are generally subject to bourgeois control of the modes of production.

What do you mean by control of the &#39;modes of production&#39;?

You are of course correct in saying that entrepreneurs are subject to forces beyond their control – this is a defining characteristic of capitalism known as alienation, although it is experienced differently depending on one&#39;s relationship to the means of production. Even individual Bourgeois are alienated – they are forced to re-invest their profits into the expansion of production and improvements in technical efficiency in order to maintain competitive with other firms, although in the long term this increase in the organic composition of capital results in a declining rate of profit

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:20 am

Small business owners have very little "control" they may own a small business but they are generally subject to bourgeois control of the modes of production.

What do you mean by control of the &#39;modes of production&#39;?

You are of course correct in saying that entrepreneurs are subject to forces beyond their control – this is a defining characteristic of capitalism known as alienation, although it is experienced differently depending on one&#39;s relationship to the means of production. Even individual Bourgeois are alienated – they are forced to re-invest their profits into the expansion of production and improvements in technical efficiency in order to maintain competitive with other firms, although in the long term this increase in the organic composition of capital results in a declining rate of profit
He incorrectly used "mode[s] of production" as a synonym for "means of production".

[A.J.]

Surely for any enterprise in capitalist society not to exploit(even a "mom and pop store") it would have to both (a) pay their workers the full value of their labour and (b) buy the goods and services from the wholesaler at the value of the labour it took to produce them and then sell them on in the store to the consumer for exactly the same price&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

In which case no surplus value would be attained thus no profit would be had leading to the enterprise instantly going out of business&#33;

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:16 pm
Surely for any enterprise in capitalist society not to exploit(even a "mom and pop store") it would have to both (a) pay their workers the full value of their labour and (b) buy the goods and services from the wholesaler at the value of the labour it took to produce them and then sell them on in the store to the consumer for exactly the same price&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

In which case no surplus value would be attained thus no profit would be had leading to the enterprise instantly going out of business&#33;
EXACTLY&#33;

All profit is exploitative of both the laborers and the consumers.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Martov+November 22, 2007 08:08 pm--> (Martov @ November 22, 2007 08:08 pm)
Lenin [email protected] 23, 2007 02:23 am
While it is certainly true that small businesses in the capitalist system are exploitive by nature, the small business is soon to be a thing of the past. Globalization, corporatism and brand names are taking over the world. In fact, small business owners are frequently bankrupted by large companies and absorbed into the proletariat, thus hopefully losing their faith in the capitalist system and the lie of the "American Dream" overnight. This is happening more and more, exactly as Marx predicted.
Provide evidence.

If anything, the number of small businesses has increased.

For example, when looking at Australia - a fairly advanced capitalist country, the following statistics are interesting:


At June 2006, there were 807,581 (41.1%) employing businesses and 1,156,326 (58.9%) non-employing businesses.

The majority of employing businesses, 721,569 (89.3%) employed less than 20 employees as at June 2006. This comprised 494,196 (68.5%) businesses with 1-4 employees and 227,373 (31.5%) businesses with 5-19 employees. There were also 80,215 (9.9%) employing businesses with 20 to 199 employees and 5,797 (<1%) employing businesses with 200+ employees.

The survival rates for businesses operating since June 2003 varied significantly between the employing (87.3%) and the non-employing (53.8%) populations. In addition, for employing businesses, survival rates were slightly higher for businesses employing between 5-19 employees (90.4%) and 20-199 employees (90.2%).

In the period June 2005-06, entry rates were higher for non-employing businesses (18.4%) and business employing 1-4 employees (16.8%). Conversely, entry rates for businesses employing five or more employees were at noticeably lower levels. Exit rates over the same period were highest for non-employing businesses (18.2%) and businesses employing 1-4 employees (12.2%), but were lowest for businesses employing between 20-199 staff (6.1%). Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Business Demography (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/39433889d406eeb9ca2570610019e9a5/4b58cf00cd15574fca25728b000ceede&#33;OpenDocument)

Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to find statistics which compare the number of self-employed or small businesses a century ago. However, I would think that it would be reasonable to argue that small business has grown. Firstly, the advent of the internet and communication technology allows businesses to be run from home. Secondly, the increased availability of loan capital. Here are statistics to prove the increase in the number of businesses ran from home:


In June 2004 there were 1,660,000 operators of the 1,269,000 non-agricultural small businesses in Australia. Home based businesses make up a very large proportion of the total small business population in Australia. At June 2004, it was estimated that 67.5% of all small businesses were home based, compared to 58.3% in February 1997. [That was just 7 years difference&#33;] These businesses were operated by 1,040,000 people, representing 62.6% of all small business operators. This reflected annual increases in the proportions of home based businesses and operators, 1.0 and 0.5 percentage points respectively. Characteristics of Small Business, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/E49E3B4DC3595C92CA2568A900139377?Open)

So, small business has not become a thing of the past.

In fact, its scope is increasing.

Whether larger corporations will absorb smaller businesses is yet to be seen. [/b]
The sheer NUMBER of businesses is a different statistic than how much profit they make or how much capital they control. The vast majority of businesses ARE small businesses.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 24, 2007 01:01 am
The vast majority of businesses ARE small businesses.
But the majority of capital is owned by corporations. I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s what you&#39;re getting at here but I thought I could make it more clear.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by drosera99+November 24, 2007 03:46 am--> (drosera99 @ November 24, 2007 03:46 am)
Lenin [email protected] 24, 2007 01:01 am
The vast majority of businesses ARE small businesses.
But the majority of capital is owned by corporations. I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s what you&#39;re getting at here but I thought I could make it more clear. [/b]
Yes, that is what I was attempting to show. Thank you.

[Marsella]

Small business owners are exploited by the bourgeoisie just as the proletariat. They are threatened by failure as they are subject to the bourgeoisie&#39;s ownership of the means of production.

How are petty-bourgeoisie exploited by the bourgeoisie?

Let&#39;s take an example, a restaurant owner owns and manages his company.

How is he exploited?

Taxes? :lol:


Small business owners have very little "control" they may own a small business but they are generally subject to bourgeois control of the modes of production. Ultimately, they are exploited by the bourgeoisie, though in some cases they are an instrument of the bourgeois class for the purpose of managing production of commodities.

Wrong.

Small businesses owners make all the decisions over their business; what they will pay workers, the amount of commodities produced, the working conditions.

They are minor capitalists, with a role in the production process.


However, ultimately what determines their role is not that they are involved in this process but their relation to the modes of production which ultimately determines their involvement in the first place. i.e. small business owners and the petit-bourgeoisie are still subject to bourgeois control of the modes of production. They are just instruments aiding the production of bourgeois capital through the production and transfer of commodities.

Yes; their relation to the means of production; they hire and exploit.


They don&#39;t necessarily have control over this, they are exploited by it just as proletarians are as it is ultimately necessary for them to sustain this relation as they are dependent on the small amount they earn (which is not the profit attained from the production of a commodity- because they are a means of bringing the commodity into existence, they don&#39;t own it.

:lol:

The small amount they earn?

They earn numerous times what the workers, whom they exploit, earn.

Where I formerly worked, a restaurant, the business would pull in &#036;20,000 a night. Even assuming that half of that went to expenses (and how much fish could you buy with &#036;10,000?&#33;) there was still &#036;10,000 missing from the equation.

I received &#036;70 on a good night.

Where did that other &#036;9,930 go?

Boohoo&#33; Poor small business owner is being exploited&#33; :(

They are against big business because it reduces their profit.

Hence they are reactionary.

Now, if they did fall into the ranks of the proletariat, which Marx maintained, they may be potential allies of the proletariat.

As I have outlined that has been proven incorrect; small business still thrives and forms a great deal of the economy. Now, you may argue that it will happen in the future, but raise an argument to support that.

And when their businesses do fail, do you think they go off to work in a factory?&#33;

More likely they go back to being an accountant or whatever the fuck they did.

In their mind, when they amass enough capital they will be trying again.


However, they are exploited through this relation just as the proletariat in that the little amount they are paid for managing the forces which bring commodities into existence is not comparable to the value of the commodity itself- because they don&#39;t receive the value of the commodity. They don&#39;t gain capital from it, however, in this regard, they are alienated from this act of "managing" just as the proletariat is alienated from the act of labour in regard to production of commodities.

You&#39;re throwing a lot of big words around but not making your &#39;arguments&#39; clear or logical.

They do receive the surplus value, they do gain capital from it.

They are not &#39;alienated&#39; (whatever the fuck that means) from managing.

Try and tell that to my last boss who ran the business like a Gestapo agent&#33; :lol:



It seems logical that they are not merely exploitive in regards to their own nature but in regard to being an instrument of the bourgeois ruling class, which ultimately the small business owners do not control their relation to. They may manage the production/transfer of commodities but they do not have ownership of these commodities and therefore they don&#39;t have ownership of the capital produced by the commodities.

Where are you pulling these &#39;arguments&#39; from?

They do own the commodities.

They do receive capital.

What distinguishes him is that he is actively involved in the management of the business, whereas the bourgeoisie merely own and collect profit.

Hence, stock owners are capitalist.


Their role is to manage the production of commodities which the bourgeoisie owns though its control of the modes of production. So, ultimately, small business owners are still subject to the conditions of bourgeois society and their interests are much more common with the interests of the proletariat than the bourgeoisie as they are too exploited by the same conditions as the proletariat is.

What a complete bullshit argument. &#39;...their interests are much more common with the interests of the proletariat.&#39;

They are NOT exploited.

Exploited meaning that they do not receive the full value of their work.

They do, and they profit handsomely from the work of their employees.

Their interests are NOT more common with that of the proletariat.

On the contrary, if they had a chance to expand their business, to expand their capital and become bourgeoisie themselves, they would take it&#33;

They are sub-par capitalists, and hence their interests are not aligned with that of the proletariat.


The sheer NUMBER of businesses is a different statistic than how much profit they make or how much capital they control. The vast majority of businesses ARE small businesses.

Here is an idea.

Show me a statistic which shows that big-business holds more capital than small businesses.

Otherwise your assertion remains baseless, even if it is correct.


But the majority of capital is owned by corporations. I&#39;m pretty sure that&#39;s what you&#39;re getting at here but I thought I could make it more clear.

Ditto.

And to the point, the vast majority of businesses are small businesses. They are the main exploiters of the working class. Since they take up the vast majority of businesses, they also employ the vast majority of workers.

Would you deny the workers the chance to revolt merely because they are in a small business and not in a large corporation?

Wherever workers do not receive the full value of their labour they are completely justified to take over that business, whether their boss is petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 22, 2007 09:53 am
While it is certainly true that small businesses in the capitalist system are exploitive by nature, the small business is soon to be a thing of the past. Globalization, corporatism and brand names are taking over the world. In fact, small business owners are frequently bankrupted by large companies and absorbed into the proletariat, thus hopefully losing their faith in the capitalist system and the lie of the "American Dream" overnight. This is happening more and more, exactly as Marx predicted.
I&#39;m not so sure yet, though (while certain segments of the petit-bourgeoisie are being absorbed, others are booming in the form of "small to medium enterprises") (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65105):


Perhaps one of these days I&#39;ll actually tune in to Lou Dobbs once more, especially after a globalization discussion awhile back.

I have read about the phenomenon of the "shrinking middle class," but originally I dismissed it as temporary rubbish, only to find out that the shrinking happened far sooner than expected, and also correlates with this:

"Hourglass" corporate environment

1) Lots of small businesses below, filling in various niches, with the potential for cooperation between various small businesses where at least one party dominates a niche market...

2) "Shrinking middle": there has been an increasing trend to intentionally downsize to a small business even when profitable, because elements of the "shrinking middle" either get bought out by the biggies - or shrink to niche markets, possibly because of falling rates of profit.

3) The multinational monopolies (not used in the discussion, because of a general lack of knowledge about history repeating itself on the part of the class as a whole, which I happily kept to myself) and globalization ("outsourcing") of value chains:


Free competition is the fundamental characteristic of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eye, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist over it and alongside of it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts.

What&#39;s happening in fact is a "shrinking middle," because there can be a plethora of niche businesses which aren&#39;t being paid attention to as threats by Big Business.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:59 am
and has left the small bodega to his 3 sons which work there and they are the only ones working there
If they don&#39;t use the employment process, then they&#39;re outside the range of applicability of a model that describes the employment process.

[dty06]

Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 22, 2007 04:53 pm
While it is certainly true that small businesses in the capitalist system are exploitive by nature, the small business is soon to be a thing of the past. Globalization, corporatism and brand names are taking over the world. In fact, small business owners are frequently bankrupted by large companies and absorbed into the proletariat, thus hopefully losing their faith in the capitalist system and the lie of the "American Dream" overnight. This is happening more and more, exactly as Marx predicted.
To prove this point, one needs only to look at Walmart. They are the epitome of a large corporation moving into an area where decent working class folks try to earn a living with their small store, and all of a sudden they&#39;re out of business because they can&#39;t keep slashing their prices, because they actually pay their employees instead of locking them in the store overnight so that they&#39;ll show up for the early shift.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by dty06+November 24, 2007 04:29 pm--> (dty06 @ November 24, 2007 04:29 pm)
Lenin [email protected] 22, 2007 04:53 pm
While it is certainly true that small businesses in the capitalist system are exploitive by nature, the small business is soon to be a thing of the past. Globalization, corporatism and brand names are taking over the world. In fact, small business owners are frequently bankrupted by large companies and absorbed into the proletariat, thus hopefully losing their faith in the capitalist system and the lie of the "American Dream" overnight. This is happening more and more, exactly as Marx predicted.
To prove this point, one needs only to look at Walmart. They are the epitome of a large corporation moving into an area where decent working class folks try to earn a living with their small store, and all of a sudden they&#39;re out of business because they can&#39;t keep slashing their prices, because they actually pay their employees instead of locking them in the store overnight so that they&#39;ll show up for the early shift. [/b]
Decent small business owners?&#33; :lol:

Walmart is not an example of every type of monopoly.

Surely in different areas of the economy there would be different degrees of monopoly and centralization?

Several areas seem this way off the top of my head: banking, flying sector and the computer OS market.

Why not other areas of the economy?

[Zurdito]

Small Businesses: Don&#39;t They Exploit Too?

yes they do, which is why communists oppose them 100%