What is to be done about small businesses?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Currently there exist millions of small businesses around the globe who have relatively little control over the means of production, if any (some online businesses). What is to be done about these businesses? Are they to be treated differently than the major corporations? I'd like to get some views passed around before making a comment, because I have two separate notions.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Small business usually exploit their employees in pretty brutal ways. Their profit margins are thinner so they tend to fight workers for every inch. Small business associations also lead the fight against minimum wage legislation and other basic worker protections. Come the revolution they will be collectivized and socially reorganized like everything else.

[JimmyJazz]

I will just speak from personal experience on this one. My job is providing behavioral therapy for autistic kids. The company is owned by two guys with PhDs in psychology. The simple fact is that they have spent the last ~30 years of their lives developing an extremely elaborate set of behavioral programs to treat autism across a whole range of ages and cognitive abilities--doing original research, publishing it, and applying it all in the real world. I don't think I could learn from them all that they have discovered even if I were to work there for 10 years.

So, why are they my employers and I am their employee? It has a little to do with the fact that they have capital which I don't have (they can afford rent on the facility I work at, etc.), but that is only a fraction of the reason. The majority of their compensation from the business is a direct result of productive work they have performed for society. So me and my coworkers' relationship to them is more like an apprenticeship situation, really, and has little to do with a mere difference in money to invest.

That's kind of an extreme case. At the other end, it's possible to imagine an unskilled job where one person employs the others solely because he had the capital to invest and they did not; like a fast food franchise or a maid service or a small private construction company. As a socialist, I reject profit in those cases, since wealth is its own reward and doesn't need to be further rewarded with profit. But then there is a whole range in between, which is where many small businesses probably lie.

So I guess I would say that it is important to treat them on a case-by-case basis and not to tinker unless you are sure that what you are correcting is in fact exploitation. If the difference between employer and employed is one of skill/ability/amount of work performed, it's a justified difference and we have no right to mess with it.

That said, all employees, including myself, should have certain legal rights at work and the ability to join a union.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Small business usually exploit their employees in pretty brutal ways. Their profit margins are thinner so they tend to fight workers for every inch. Small business associations also lead the fight against minimum wage legislation and other basic worker protections. Come the revolution they will be collectivized and socially reorganized like everything else.

I have no clue where you're reaching that conclusion. The small businesses I've been in contact with are a lot better than major corporations. Obviously they can't afford as many benefits; that's not exploitation. Not even they have the funds. Most small businesses go into the red for three or five years.

I have to disagree with collectivizing all small businesses. Some yeah - especially those that rely on state benefits, but you're going to have a hella' time tracing down every server which hosts an online business. And you'll probably turn off a lot of workers; although failure rates are stupendous, a lot (not all or even a majority, but a lot) have the means of trying a small business.

Jimmy, I'm tending to agree with everything you said. Collective bargaining needs to be made available to everyone (at least where there is a need in any state situations).

[Ratatosk]

Generally speaking, I'd say that the access of the business to the MoP should be subject to popular approval (for the sake of both democracy and efficiency) and there should be some sort of checks on the fairness of remuneration and work safety. Other than that, I see little reason for the society at large to meddle in the internal workings of the business.

[PRC-UTE]

So I guess I would say that it is important to treat them on a case-by-case basis and not to tinker unless you are sure that what you are correcting is in fact exploitation. If the difference between employer and employed is one of skill/ability/amount of work performed, it's a justified difference and we have no right to mess with it.

you're right about studying it case by case. trying to collectivise every industry over night, even quite small 'niche' industries and delicate, innovative firms like the one you mentioned could imperil necessary production.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I have no clue where you're reaching that conclusion. The small businesses I've been in contact with are a lot better than major corporations. Obviously they can't afford as many benefits; that's not exploitation. Not even they have the funds. Most small businesses go into the red for three or five years.

I have to disagree with collectivizing all small businesses. Some yeah - especially those that rely on state benefits, but you're going to have a hella' time tracing down every server which hosts an online business. And you'll probably turn off a lot of workers; although failure rates are stupendous, a lot (not all or even a majority, but a lot) have the means of trying a small business.


I'm getting that conclusion from jobs at small businesses and organizing various small businesses. Because their profit margins are small, these businesses will fight workers organization tooth and nail. For example, the Downtown Workers union in Montpelier was brutally attacked by the liberal, alternative, small business owners of Montpelier. Why? Because the hyperexploitation of workers is key for a small business to function. They can't outsource to china or Indonesia, so they have to operate sweatshops conditions at home. For example, my stepfather was owed 8 months in back wages when his last employer went under, he got pennies on the dollar back.

Small businesses will be socialized because a social revolution eliminates the need for wage labor.. They'll either leave the business and send it into collapse, or they'll act like the barbers and waiters of Catalonia and socialize the businesses on their own.

[Tower of Bebel]

Should marxist be interested in the nationalization of these businesses? I think not. When the proletarian state asserts control over big industry and imposes its laws small industry will automatically follow. When workers of smaller industries see that the workers of big industries get the benefits of proletarian social and labour legislation they will automatically urge for the same treatment. We can leave the capitalists be: as long as they are controlled by the workers, they will have to follow suite.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html

Whatever is to be done about small businesses (preferrably their transformation into workers' cooperatives), perhaps this "transitional" lawsuit demand would apply:

http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html


Scientific evidence shows that in the capitalist world the money value of goods is overwhelmingly determined by their labour contents. Studies find that for most economies the correlation between labour values and prices are 95% or above. So Adam Smiths scientific hypothesis that labour was the source of value has now been statistically verified.

This scientific fact should be incorporated in law.

The law should recognise that labour is the sole source of value and that in consequence, workers, or their Unions will have a claim in law against their employers if they are paid less than the full value of their labour.

If we consider the previous measures and the revolutionary pedagogy that would follow from them, it should be relatively easy to pass a referendum on such a law.

Following such a law being passed, there would be a huge wave of worker activism as workers and their unions sought to end the cheating and deceit to which they and their ancestors had been subjected. It would also bring about a very large increase in real wages, cementing support for the socialist government.

The employing class, on the other hand would see sharp fall in their unearned incomes. Employers who were active factory managers would of course still be legally entitled to be paid for the hours that they put in managing the firm, just like any other employee.

For comrades raising accusations of "Lassalleanism," I would like to add that Comrade Cockshott is not a Lassallean by any stretch. In a more accurate form, the demand would recognize that "human labour – be it manual or mental – and its technological, labour-saving equivalent are the only non-natural sources of value production," and that claims in law can be made where surplus value is extracted.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Jacob, I have a problem with the concept of time vouchers. It seems to do a disservice to the labor theory of value by suggesting that the amount of time one exerts is more important than the actual amount. If we accept some level of disparity between different workers, which time vouchers do, mowing an entire lawn and conducting a medical operation can come out to be the same.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob, I have a problem with the concept of time vouchers. It seems to do a disservice to the labor theory of value by suggesting that the amount of time one exerts is more important than the actual amount. If we accept some level of disparity between different workers, which time vouchers do, mowing an entire lawn and conducting an operation can come out to be the same.


I didn't say "time vouchers," though. I have *some* reservations about Comrade Cockshott's equal pay stuff, as well (but those reservations do NOT warrant IMT-esque splits :rolleyes: ).

Labour credit's primary functions are to prevent the formation of money-capital through circulation and to establish truly equal exchange in terms of labour and consumption (especially if "deductions for the common funds" are to be made by other means).

[Rosa Provokateur]

I will just speak from personal experience on this one. My job is providing behavioral therapy for autistic kids. The company is owned by two guys with PhDs in psychology. The simple fact is that they have spent the last ~30 years of their lives developing an extremely elaborate set of behavioral programs to treat autism across a whole range of ages and cognitive abilities--doing original research, publishing it, and applying it all in the real world. I don't think I could learn from them all that they have discovered even if I were to work there for 10 years.

Thats truly beutiful, man. Thats revolutionary in and of itself, thats doing God's work.

[JimmyJazz]

^Well, I do get paid.

edit: on second thought, preachers doing God's work are some of the most well-paid people in society, so I guess the two are not mutually exclusive.


Jacob, I have a problem with the concept of time vouchers. It seems to do a disservice to the labor theory of value by suggesting that the amount of time one exerts is more important than the actual amount. If we accept some level of disparity between different workers, which time vouchers do, mowing an entire lawn and conducting a medical operation can come out to be the same.




The difference between those two is something you could calculate: just treat the doctor's time getting educated as work time and compensate for it. After that correction there's only an injustice if you believe people should be rewarded for intelligence, but I don't see why they should, or need to be. I'm not sure what this has to do with the labor ToV though, so maybe I'm missing your point.

[AnthArmo]

If memory serves me right, I'm quite sure Lenin allowed small business to operate. His reasoning was that "Capitalism had not yet fully developed in these businesses and were not ready for worker's control" or something like that.

I'd allow them, you need a balance of individualism and Communitarian ideals. However, these institutions would still obey basic laws set by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ie, minimum wage, workers rights. And I agree with having them turn into worker's cooperatives or Nationalized by the state after they grow sufficiently enough. Many family business's don't really exploit their workers anyway.

[Gleb]

If memory serves me right, I'm quite sure Lenin allowed small business to operate. His reasoning was that "Capitalism had not yet fully developed in these businesses and were not ready for worker's control" or something like that.


Yeah, "Novaya yekonomičeskaya politika", NEP, was in effect during the 1920's after rather unsuccesful attempt of "voennyj kommunizm", military communism (or whatever the official term in English is). It was form of restricted mixed economy where small businesses were allowed to operate and peasants had much more economic freedoms than during years of military communism or Stalin's planned economy.

I really don't see the problem in small businesses if they are willing to play the game by the rules set by the proletarian state. Bigger businesses should be run through cooperative principles but I don't find this actually necessary when it comes to smaller ones who usually are not of very exploitative nature. Many smaller businesses without control over means of productions, like certain online businesses as Gene Costa already mentioned, may be, vice versa, rather useful to consumers and certainly not harmful to anyone.

[Glenn Beck]

I will just speak from personal experience on this one. My job is providing behavioral therapy for autistic kids. The company is owned by two guys with PhDs in psychology. The simple fact is that they have spent the last ~30 years of their lives developing an extremely elaborate set of behavioral programs to treat autism across a whole range of ages and cognitive abilities--doing original research, publishing it, and applying it all in the real world. I don't think I could learn from them all that they have discovered even if I were to work there for 10 years.

So, why are they my employers and I am their employee? It has a little to do with the fact that they have capital which I don't have (they can afford rent on the facility I work at, etc.), but that is only a fraction of the reason. The majority of their compensation from the business is a direct result of productive work they have performed for society. So me and my coworkers' relationship to them is more like an apprenticeship situation, really, and has little to do with a mere difference in money to invest.

That's kind of an extreme case. At the other end, it's possible to imagine an unskilled job where one person employs the others solely because he had the capital to invest and they did not; like a fast food franchise or a maid service or a small private construction company. As a socialist, I reject profit in those cases, since wealth is its own reward and doesn't need to be further rewarded with profit. But then there is a whole range in between, which is where many small businesses probably lie.

So I guess I would say that it is important to treat them on a case-by-case basis and not to tinker unless you are sure that what you are correcting is in fact exploitation. If the difference between employer and employed is one of skill/ability/amount of work performed, it's a justified difference and we have no right to mess with it.

That said, all employees, including myself, should have certain legal rights at work and the ability to join a union.


My personal opinion is that taking hugely radical actions on the eve of a revolution like nationalizing all small businesses and whatever is a waste of resources and is potentially destabilizing, I think there are certain priorities and making sure that all vestiges of capitalist relations are gone "the day after the revolution" seems a pretty quixotic one. I have plenty of sympathy with your case-by-case principle and also the "commanding heights" principle for the early stages of socialism when socializing all production is either unfeasible, or only feasible in the short term with great sacrifices that may not be worth it.

Perhaps a model could be the Chavista concept which seems to be a combination of the nationalization of strategic industries (I guess roughly, the "commanding heights), and the heavy encouragement of workers cooperatives to replace traditional businesses in a transitional economy. Under this principle small businesses are neither opposed nor supported but treated as valid for the time being as vestiges of the old society with an important role in production operated by people with certain rights. I guess the idea is that over time the three forms of ownership prevalent in society (SOEs, small businesses, and worker owned enterprises) would eventually coalesce under the transitional economy into a more truly socialistic and eventually communistic mode of production. (Whether the actual practice of the Bolivarian Revolution bears this out or even if this is what many of its leaders intend is another issue entirely, I'm just using it as an example).

I can't help but think though, that things like the example from your life you cite are not fundamentally nor should they be capitalist enterprises or "small businesses" or whatever. How much is the fact that it is organized as one a result of the fact that being a capitalist enterprise is an efficient way to provide the service it does, and how much is it because that is how things are done in this society, and there is no other way to support such an enterprise than to constitute it as a business?

Forgive me if this is presumptuous but perhaps such an enterprise could be better constituted as a community sponsored and funded operation where the most experienced and skilled members serve as directors who lead less skilled workers and employ members of the community for support work (like secretaries, cleaning staff, or whatever miscellaneous tasks). Didn't you say yourself that your relationship to your employer is more like that of an apprentice than a wage-laborer? Also, a capitalist business has one purpose primarily: to return a profit on its investments. But the enterprise you work at would seem to have a different purpose, to study and treat autism. Doesn't the profit motive simply get in the way?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

^Well, I do get paid.

edit: on second thought, preachers doing God's work are some of the most well-paid people in society, so I guess the two are not mutually exclusive.



The difference between those two is something you could calculate: just treat the doctor's time getting educated as work time and compensate for it. After that correction there's only an injustice if you believe people should be rewarded for intelligence, but I don't see why they should, or need to be. I'm not sure what this has to do with the labor ToV though, so maybe I'm missing your point.

I think "mental labor" is a legitimate reason to get compensated, yes. In the case of a surgeon the labor is both physically and mentally exhausting.

[Decolonize The Left]

In the first case, it is highly unlikely that a worker's state (to use the Marxist definition) will function on such a centralized, nationalized, scale as we currently find the Western world. Coordination of transportation, production, and consumption of goods and services will be very difficult in a direct democracy controlled by the workers. Hence it is only logical that such a 'state' will be decentralized.

If this is the case, then it is vitally necessary that small business remain (though obvious that they will be restructured). Small businesses are vital to small communities. Should the workers control the businesses themselves, I see no reason why they ought not continue.

- August

[La Comédie Noire]

I think they should be allowed to stay on as workers, they could have valuable information about their chosen field of practice, but it has to be made clear

They Are No Longer Bosses!

As for those who refuse they can continue to try to operate on a wage labour basis, but they may find it hard to compete with worker cooperative's. Hell they may not even be able to find anyone willing to work on a wage labour basis!

Overwhelming social and economic pressure will make them give up their property all on their own or they may just organize it into a cooperative.

Old institutions never last long in the midst of a new society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If this is the case, then it is vitally necessary that small business remain (though obvious that they will be restructured). Small businesses are vital to small communities. Should the workers control the businesses themselves, I see no reason why they ought not continue.

- August

We're talking about whether workers should control small businesses, or whether social and economic pressure should set in instead. So far the majority seem to be in favor of letting small business owners go about their business, with only some changes. This seems like the practical decision.

[JimmyJazz]

Forgive me if this is presumptuous but perhaps such an enterprise could be better constituted as a community sponsored and funded operation where the most experienced and skilled members serve as directors who lead less skilled workers and employ members of the community for support work (like secretaries, cleaning staff, or whatever miscellaneous tasks). Didn't you say yourself that your relationship to your employer is more like that of an apprentice than a wage-laborer? Also, a capitalist business has one purpose primarily: to return a profit on its investments. But the enterprise you work at would seem to have a different purpose, to study and treat autism. Doesn't the profit motive simply get in the way?

I agree with that, but I do wonder if the population would ever become radical enough to demand or even support this. I mean, if the state tried to mess with my work, I think most of the employees would take my bosses' side over the state. This may or may not be accurate on their part, but I think most (young) people believe they will one day be rich enough to own a business. And at my work at least, the owners are in their 50s while most of us employees are still in our 20s or 30s.

I love Chavez' model of encouraging cooperatives (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html), I definitely agree with you on that. It strikes me as much better than trying to nationalize things overnight.


I think "mental labor" is a legitimate reason to get compensated, yes. In the case of a surgeon the labor is both physically and mentally exhausting.


That makes sense I guess, although one of the traditional complaints of the labor movement, when it has been strong, is that the bosses get to do all the brain work while the workers are made into automotons. Taylorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorism). I mean, is there any question for you personally whether you'd rather be a trash collector or a surgeon/scientist/whatever? People in the brainier jobs will always have the higher status (government could not take that away), and getting to use your brain at work is really it's own reward, I would think. So maybe there could be some limited material compensation for mental work, but I wouldn't make it very high, because it doesn't need to be high.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

We're talking about whether workers should control small businesses, or whether social and economic pressure should set in instead. So far the majority seem to be in favor of letting small business owners go about their business, with only some changes. This seems like the practical decision.

Or we could go with option 3 "small business owners can't run business without workers labor, small businessess collapse. Workers who feel like it collectivize their small business workplace." I mean this is all rather absurd, we're not arguing that small scale wage slavery is ok, and should continue during a social revolution?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I mean this is all rather absurd, we're not arguing that small scale wage slavery is ok, and should continue during a social revolution? We're talking about structures where most of the wealth actually derives from the owners' efforts, and which democratic alternatives would exist for laborers who don't want to endure such conditions. It's not a statistical abnormality: small business owners bust their arses. Seizing the rightful fruits of labor from a small business is not a "solution." The labor of every individual should be recognized as important.

Frankly your approach appears out of touch with the fact that it's virtually impossible to socialize every existing business through force, and it could even be harmful. Both from an economic standpoint and the social backlash. What are you going to do: socialize a family pizza house that has been in operation through four generations? Socialize an internet business because some kid in Jerusalem is getting paid to be a moderator?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

We're talking about structures where most of the wealth actually derives from the owners' efforts, and which democratic alternatives would exist for laborers who don't want to endure such conditions. It's not a statistical abnormality: small business owners bust their arses. Seizing the rightful fruits of labor from a small business is not a "solution." The labor of every individual should be recognized as important.

Small business owners may work "hard" but if they employ wage labor than they have entered into a relationship of violence against their workers. This is kind of a big "duh" that any revolutionary should understand. Have we suddenly stopped our opposition to wage slavery?


Frankly your approach appears out of touch with the fact that it's virtually impossible to socialize every existing business through force, and it could even be harmful. Both from an economic standpoint and the social backlash. What are you going to do: socialize a family pizza house that has been in operation through four generations? Socialize an internet business because some kid in Jerusalem is getting paid to be a moderator?God you're such a bloody liberal.

Small business won't survive a social revolution because workers will leave them in order to engage in collective production , which doesn't have alienated labor, and master/slave relationships. You're asking a moot question. Its as if someone asked "what if people want to remain serfs to nice, small time lords, under capitalism?" No one in their right mind would willingly enserf themself, and no one in thier right mind would willingly wage enslave themself when alternatives exist.

Now we could talk about self employed persons, but this too is rather silly. I'm sure some people will opt to operate as indepedent producers, and this is alright. However, most people are of sound body and mind, and wouldn't want to engage in the overwork and self exploitation of self employment, when socialized production offers more choice, fewer hours, and an elimination of unequal divisions of labor.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Small business owners may work "hard" but if they employ wage labor than they have entered into a relationship of violence against their workers.

That's a ridiculous assertion. It is perfectly acceptable to employ others if what you offer is a superior knowledge or ability. I have no qualms with a karate mentor starting a little business in a strip mall, nor should I have my website forcefully socialized if I offer you seven bucks to moderate its activity.


Have we suddenly stopped our opposition to wage slavery?

If wage subordination is voluntary, with non-hierarchal alternatives present for others to join, it is no more wage slavery than servants are slaves.


God you're such a bloody liberal.

Actually I'm just someone who thinks practically about the future and doesn't want to take the rightful fruits of someone's labor regardless of what class they reside in.


Small business won't survive a social revolution because workers will leave them in order to engage in collective production , which doesn't have alienated labor, and master/slave relationships.

Then this whole discussion is moot and we still don't have to socialize most small businesses.


Its as if someone asked "what if people want to remain serfs to nice, small time lords, under capitalism?"

Actually it's more akin to asking if you want to be a farmer post-serfdom, since choice is now a real virtue.


However, most people are of sound body and mind, and wouldn't want to engage in the overwork and self exploitation of self employment, when socialized production offers more choice, fewer hours, and an elimination of unequal divisions of labor.

And yet for those exceptions you want the state to come in and snatch up family-owned businesses...

[RebelDog]

GeneCosta:

Go here and join your friends and give us all peace: http://www.fsb.org.uk/

[Devrim]

Surely even in a transitional period the working class will have to use the economy as a weapon. That means adopting certain measures that will both help the working class to spread the revolution and hinder the ability of other classes to resist it.

In my opinion one of these would have to be the abolition of money.


What are you going to do: socialize a family pizza house that has been in operation through four generations? Socialize an internet business because some kid in Jerusalem is getting paid to be a moderator?

So the question above doesn't really come up. The economic conditions that allow small businesses (or any businesses) to exist will be destroyed.

By the way Gene, you seem to have deep anti-socialist convictions.

Devrim

[Schrödinger's Cat]

By the way Gene, you seem to have deep anti-socialist convictions.

That statement is nonsense. We've already been through this in other forums. This forum's constituency is limited in its application of socialism. Communism and participatory planning are not the only form of socialism.


So the question above doesn't really come up. The economic conditions that allow small businesses (or any businesses) to exist will be destroyed.

That doesn't address private currency, or free banking.


Go here and join your friends and give us all peace: http://www.fsb.org.uk/

Don't get uppity because I find state-forced communism reprehensible.

[Devrim]

So the question above doesn't really come up. The economic conditions that allow small businesses (or any businesses) to exist will be destroyed.
That doesn't address private currency, or free banking.

I would argue for the physical suppression of any attempts to operate banks, or start private currencies.

Devrim

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And I would defend that person against your authoritarian action.

[al8]

Aren't you then against the organized robust fight aginst oppression?

[Incendiarism]

Everything should be nationalized and under the control of all

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Aren't you then against the organized robust fight aginst oppression?

Private currencies aren't a form of oppression - it is a simple commodity, or at least a representation of a commodity. If any pseudo-Leftist would attack a person for forming a mutualist association, they should be stopped.


Everything should be nationalized and under the control of allEverything? Even personal possessions?

I'll stick with the non-statist route, thanks.

[RebelDog]

You seem obsessed by finding new business opportunities on the back of a working class destruction of capitalism. You never talk about the unity and solidarity of humans needed to destroy capitalism, only what is possible for free-marketeers and (18th century style production) basket weavers after the working class victory. Me, me, me.

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah Gene, I've noticed you often don't meet the forum quota for obligatory mentions of certain key concepts, I'm really not sure you belong here. :/

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Businesses opportunities, ha. Nice spin.

If you have such a problem with me not believing in suppression of the individual take it to the Communist Club.

[Rosa Provokateur]

^Well, I do get paid.

edit: on second thought, preachers doing God's work are some of the most well-paid people in society, so I guess the two are not mutually exclusive.




Most preachers are over-paid. Televangelism is spiritual terrorism and mega-churches are the training camps.