Efficiencies in Production Rebuttal

[BlackCapital]

I've been looking over some critical analysis of The Communist Manifesto and am a little confused about how to counter this quite simple argument:

"What he could not understand was that the means of production would become less and less expensive all the time due to efficiencies in production. Workers would themselves become entrepreneurs in free and republican societies. The advent of computers, and inexpensive access to the tools of a service industry would make small business a dominant and driving force.

He was wrong because he could not see that the dialectic process would work to elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class and not pull all of society down to the lowest common denominator."

I see inherent problems with this statement, but I'm not quite sure how to articulate it in a relatively short, effective manner. Help would be greatly appreciated!

(EDIT: I realize the Manifesto is not the end-all-be-all of revolutionary texts, and I'm not necessarily looking for a counter within its parameters, just in general)

[La Comédie Noire]

Woah! What a load of bullshit! But do not fear! Let's just take it one claim at a time.


What he could not understand was that the means of production would become less and less expensive all the time due to efficiencies in production.

Actually he understood it perfectly and called it a “contradiction” in capitalism. He predicted as the means of production were advanced they would be able to produce more for less rendering a scarcity based economy unnecessary.



Workers would themselves become entrepreneurs in free and republican societies.


The exact opposite is true! Sure some own little bits of stock, but they are usually substitutes or subsidiaries for retirement funds. They rarely get to decide how a company is run that is still left up to the majority share holders and the executives.

It's an illusion.


The advent of computers, and inexpensive access to the tools of a service industry would make small business a dominant and driving force.

The dot com bubble burst and monopolies still rule the land! Usually people who make this argument are a kin to buy into all that post industrial information age shit.

It's not true.

[mikelepore]

This "everyone can be an entrepeneur" claim is based on the fantasy that a society can be based on individuals mowing each others lawns, giving each other piano lessons, selling each other apples, etc. Apparently, in that fastasy world, there would be no complex plants where thousands of people have to work side-by-side to mass produce cars or refrigerators or TVs. In the real world, as soon as we have large scale production, for every one person who will be the entrepeneur, there must exist hundreds of other people to are not. There just isn't enough room inside of any pyramid-shaped hierarchy for everyone to be located in the narrow vertex and for no one to be located in the wide base.