Should we allow for small-market capitalism.

[BPSocialist]

When in power should leftists allow for small-market capitalism?

For instance: Big power company (ei. British Gas): very oppressive.

Florists: Not so oppressive.

Please discuss.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, of course. In a proper socialist society it would be impossible for a company to oppress their workers so a market system could be harmless
You would never be able to outlaw it completely anyway.

[Sendo]

Be more imaginative.

A post-capitalist society does abolish trades that are currently in the private sector.

Why have competing florist shops who spend money on adverts when you can simply have publicly run florists that operate not in competition and space them out perfectly?

Why have a bunch of small places competing with each other, dispersed based on chance and real estate values?

[Raúl Duke]

No capitalism at all.
No half-measures.
"Those who make the revolution half-way have signed the orders for their own execution."

Ok, the above is only just a statement.
So here's the reasoning: material conditions effect consciousness. What kind of consciousness does having small-market capitalism would create? I think it would create the circumstances, the material conditions, and the consciousness to bring back the capitalism we already know about.

[Oneironaut]

Small business would not be able to survive in communist society. We should let small business exist in the beginning but they will surely wither away as mass production becomes more efficient. Small businesses simply won't be able to compete with highly organized and efficient "big" business.

However, before these small businesses wither away, they will not be allowed to employ wage laborers. Our goal is to smash capital, not leave it alone even if only a few workers are exploited.

[Mather]

No capitalism at all.
No half-measures.
"Those who make the revolution half-way have signed the orders for their own execution."

Ok, the above is only just a statement.
So here's the reasoning: material conditions effect consciousness. What kind of consciousness does having small-market capitalism would create? I think it would create the circumstances, the material conditions, and the consciousness to bring back the capitalism we already know about.


Agreed.

Small buinessmen, aka the petit-bourgeoisie, may not have the same decision making powers and the same level of influence within the state and the capitalist system as their much larger corporate counterparts, but the material conditions of small businessmen does affect their outlook and consciousness, which is the same outlook and consciousness as the ruling class/bourgeoisie in relation to the working class, the class struggle and social revolution.

[punisa]

Depends on which leftist regime we talk about.
The final stage of socialism should abolish all private businesses, not as a way of repressing the small owners, but there will be no need for it.
You can still be a florist if you like it ! Which will be much easier, as you'll get a chance to indulge in your profession not worrying about marketing, competing etc.

Socialism in our life time? Then no. Small businesses should exists and remain operational. These small owners are still the working class in almost every aspect.
I even think that the first big step is to destroy corporate oppressors and hand all the material to the hands of small businesses.

You can find great working examples of this by researching workers "self-management" that was implemented in ex Yugoslavia.

[punisa]

No capitalism at all.
No half-measures.
"Those who make the revolution half-way have signed the orders for their own execution."

In theory - agreed. In practise - not gonna flow.

[PRC-UTE]

in some small niche areas for consumer items it coudl work okay.

[redguard2009]

In more down to earth terms, most people who open up small businesses do so to make a nice little buck. From a logical standpoint, most of those small business owners would love to make more bucks, which capitalism claims it can do for them.

How would one stop a small business from growing? Most small businesses which end up becoming large businesses do so over a period of increased profitability and eventual expansion. McDonalds started out as a single restaurant, the owner of which, after growing up a nice stable restaurant, opened up another, and then another, and so on. Real estate firms progressively buy and sell more and more property at profitable rates.

So how does one put a hard limit on business expansion:

1) In a way which offers a secure, loophole free and unexploitable "barrier" against increased monopolization;
2) Does so without creating negativity on the part of small business owners and other homespun entreprenuers who will undoubtedly see any limitation on their "right" to capital growth as totalitarian and evil?

An overhaul (or creation) of collective workplaces may to a degree impede business growth, but what happens when a collectivized business decides to expand? Can they decide to expand? Of course, logic would dictate that any new workers taken on by this expansion would become full-on collective partners, but what about the "competition"; other collectively-owned businesses which share the same market? Let's say there are two collectively-owned flower shops in some little town. One grows exponentially while the other barely manages to maintain itself. Eventually, the more prosperous collective may seek to form a monopoly on the flower business by forcing the less successful collective out; perhaps by inundating the market with so much of its own product that the smaller collective, unable to cope, collapses.

Is this kind of competition healthy? Acceptable?

In any case, my point is that even a small business can grow up to be a big threat, and limitations against small businesses (ie, allowing small private businesses but placing limits on their growth, rather than outlawing the practice entirely) will be seen as threatening by much of the petit bourgeoisie.

[bobroberts]

In the short term - Take care of the needs of the workers so that we are not forced to sell our labor to survive. If the business needs employees besides the owner to survive, they will go out of business unless they can offer fair terms to prospective employees. Until the economic system changes, those terms should be along the lines of employee ownership.

We should realize, no matter what the motivation of the small business owner, the capitalist system most likely has forced them to make large personal and financial sacrifices for what they have, and they will be angry and resist everything if they are don't feel compensated for that. It's the very reason they demand exploitative terms from employees. Eliminating their debts would probably appease most of them. If they are unhappy with that, remind them that under capitalism hard work and personal sacrifice are no guarantee of success, and let their business fail.

[Dr Mindbender]

When in power should leftists allow for small-market capitalism?

For instance: Big power company (ei. British Gas): very oppressive.

Florists: Not so oppressive.

Please discuss.

'businesspeople' work within the paradigm of the scarcity system.

Post scarcity, there would be no need for capitalism on any scale. Ultimately all capitalistic activity mantains the exploititive relationship between labour, capital and property ( someone has to pick the flowers, then someone has to drive the flowers to the shop and the florist profits from the labour of both the driver and the flower picker).

Remove this relationship and you remove the illusion for a need for a free market.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Central planning requires an analysis of the ratio between supply and demand, so that production can follow according to the plan of putting human needs first. In other words, it requires a 'market'.

But 'capitalism'? It is not efficient in it's uses of material, and by the time we are able to use markets as a a method of determining the future production plans so precisely that all 'demand' is met, then the accumulation of profit would no longer be materially viable. Production would be more or less monopolized under a public entity (i.e. the worker's state) under socialism.

[Rawthentic]

I think that it is inevitable that we will need to allow certain sections of the market to operate under socialism.

It will need to be regulated, and things like these would need to be consistently narrowed down as a part of the protracted process of continuing on the socialist road.

But any ideas of creating a "market socialist" society need to be broken down and rejected for the reactionary theory that it is.

[jake williams]

As has been mentioned, it depends on the situation and the phase of revolution. It's just really impractical to try to totally stamp out any sort of private business, and I think small businesses legitimately are less oppressive, and even "less capitalist" to be a bit crude. As one poster has pointed out, in theory it's not really something I'd support, but in practice it's not worth the effort that would be required.

[Sendo]

Be more imaginative.

A post-capitalist society does abolish trades that are currently in the private sector.

Why have competing florist shops who spend money on adverts when you can simply have publicly run florists that operate not in competition and space them out perfectly?

Why have a bunch of small places competing with each other, dispersed based on chance and real estate values?

I meant does NOT abolish trades.

Too often people conceive of socialism as some pseudo-dystopia with giant factories in Russia and millet in our bellies and not much else.

As for "petit-bourgeoisie" they go into business for different reasons. Some do it make as much money as possible as quickly as possible and the nature of their businesses are purely incidental. A florist is probably skilled in floristry (?) and can't, say, go to the community gardens to practice his art since in a capitalist society certain things only exist if you make a *private* home for them. But socialism does not mean we would make florists all be electricians or farmers.

[ashaman1324]

let small businesses exist?
i completely oppose even that.
monopolization aside, it would be a step backward into the class system.
if the wages were kept equal between the workers, i would however support a sector with less workplace regulation, with highly regulated exansion, so even the capitalist minority(i assume minority if a socialist economy is in place) can be happy.

[JimmyJazz]

For instance: Big power company (ei. British Gas): very oppressive.

Florists: Not so oppressive.

Are the florists going to employ wage-labor? If so, what's the difference?

Your plan is--and take this for what you will--the very definition of "petit-bourgeois".

[Circle E Society]

Capitalism should not be allowed to exist period.
In the mean time kick your bosses and collectivize.

[RedSonRising]

In the transition period into Communism, Modern Socialist Society would not be hindered by small businesses, depending on their nature. Many small businesses are valuable to society for three reasons:

1) Many of the services require private control, as much as I hate to say it. What makes the owner of an "Ernie's Pizza" suffer any less under forced collectivization than market monopolization from WalMart? Thinking about the consumer is often overlooked in Socialist outlook.

2) Many of these private businesses employ part-time workers, such as students. The socialist stage of involvement would be overbearing and unecessary...in my view, a cooperative business demands a direct relationship between the producer and their product and workplace. Those working under small business private conditions benefit from their wages, and that labor team is under constant rotation.

3) The small business owner will almost never reach McDonald's height, and its place in the market as a part-time spot for earnings and ability to provide a unique atmosphere/purchase make it something to keep around. If you are opposed to market forces guiding worker-run businesses that might possibly compete, this may be a problem, but I beleive that collectivizing or socializing small businesses will do more harm than good.

[cyu]

What if I asked the question: Should we allow for small-time slavery?

The answer would be obviously not - it doesn't matter if a slave-master owns 100 slaves or 1 slave, the slaves deserve to be freed.

However, it also depends on your definition of capitalism. What does it mean to you?

1. An "owner" claims the right to control all the company equipment, and the "employees" have to follow his orders or be fired.
2. A market economy.
3. Unequal income.
4. Unequal spending power.

You could abolish some of those things, but not the others. For example, let's say we kept 2, 3, and 4, but didn't have 1 - is it still capitalism if there were no bosses, but employees voted on who gets higher pay, thus maintaining economic inequality? What if we abolished 1 and 3 - is it still capitalism? People would have the same income, but would have different overall wealth because some are older and have worked longer (or have saved their money instead of spending it).

What if we abolished 1, 3, and 4, is it still capitalism? Say everyone had the same income, but if you didn't spend it, you lost it - thus no savings leading to 4. If you wanted something beyond your monthly salary, you discuss and voted with your community how to spend a pot of funds on larger projects.

See also:
http://everything2.com/node/1949681
http://everything2.com/node/1951931

[BPSocialist]

No. 2. Of course I abhore all the bad aspects of capitalism, but I also believe that we must retain some aspects of freemarket small-scale capitalism for economic reasons.

[Pogue]

No. 2. Of course I abhore all the bad aspects of capitalism, but I also believe that we must retain some aspects of freemarket small-scale capitalism for economic reasons.

So you don't believe communism can work?

[FreeFocus]

If a family wants to open a little trade shop and it's family-owned and family-run, they should be able to. No one would be exploited in that situation.

Ultimately, when needs are provided for, I don't think people will undertake opening up enterprises for money. They will pursue things that genuinely interest them.

[BPSocialist]

So you don't believe communism can work?

In certain circumstances, it can. However when the command economy gets into trouble, its always good to have something the state can turn to to cream say...50% of profits from for the benefit of all.

[Mike666]

I don't see why it would need to exist in the final stage. Humanity would have moved on.

[Yazman]

I oppose any inclusion or allowance of capitalist economics in any way, shape, or form.

One of the major problems with the current system, and one of the primary sources of oppression and class-based supremacy is that of the monetary system and I do not see any need to bother running a monetary system, let alone a free market system of any size.

Technologically speaking we have the resources to eliminate such a system entirely. I do not see any logical reason why we should continue to propagate capitalist, or monetary-based, economics when we can move beyond such a system. In some aspects we are already beginning to move beyond monetary-based distribution and allocation - in particular we can see this with the rise of the internet. There is no need for an economy built on scarcity, and particularly if the world is engulfed in a communist society then natural resources are able to be exploited globally, for everybody. In such a situation I do not feel there is any need to implement an economy built on money or scarcity, but these are principles many of you seem to cling to, as if there is no other way.


Ultimately, when needs are provided for, I don't think people will undertake opening up enterprises for money. They will pursue things that genuinely interest them.

I feel that ultimately needs will be provided for and thus no logical reason to have money in the first place.


No. 2. Of course I abhore all the bad aspects of capitalism, but I also believe that we must retain some aspects of freemarket small-scale capitalism for economic reasons.

List the economic reasons that capitalist economics in any form must be retained, however large or small.


In certain circumstances, it can. However when the command economy gets into trouble, its always good to have something the state can turn to to cream say...50% of profits from for the benefit of all.

Regardless of whether it is a free market economy or a command economy, when profit is the goal of a society you have capitalism.. the very concept implies monetary economics which by the very nature spawns class-based societies.

The abolition of monetary economics and the movement towards a technological society built around the abundance of resources available on this planet is the way forward. I do not see how you can move past capitalism while retaining the very aspect that governs and generates its insidious nature - money.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If a family wants to open a little trade shop and it's family-owned and family-run, they should be able to. No one would be exploited in that situation.

Ultimately, when needs are provided for, I don't think people will undertake opening up enterprises for money. They will pursue things that genuinely interest them.

Definitely. This thread demonstrates how a lot of members don't understand socialism. Our task is to not eliminate the desire to gain more. Humans, like all beasts, will strive to improve their conditions. I become very weary when a self-identified "leftist" starts talking about small businesses in such highly offensive terms. I even object to calling most small businesses "capitalist." Profit-motive =/= capitalism. We're talking about individuals who work at home, or family businesses.

To those who want to "force" every business into operating under a command economy: stop conforming yourself to the state and defend organizations, protests, and strikes.


Should we allow for small-time slavery?Wage slavery is a societal problem; unlike chattel slavery it is not individualistic.