I think my understanding of Communism might be a bit flawed

[Principia Ethica]

I've been a busy bee reading on the forums and reading outside books/materials as well. I keep seeing references to production as if it is referring to big companies only. (or my understanding is flawed)

So in Communism, is there room for "small businesses?" Or "sole proprietor" type businesses? Sex workers? Doggie yoga instructors? Individual provider medical services? (Like a person with a small acupuncture/psychiatry/chiropractic practice) And if so, how do they fit into the scheme of things?

I guess I'm having difficulty seeing the trees for the forest

I know I probably sound very ignorant

[ArrowLance]

If you mean that a person could have exclusive rights to property or in anyway utilize the excesses of capital for personal gains no. It may be possible for persons to organize their own practice but not in order to realize profits or control the means of production.

In no way can exclusive rights be set up or maintained over the means of production, small or large, under a communist system. So business in the capitalist sense could not be maintained. However if individual practices are to be seen they would likely fit into the system much the same as they do now. They would provide more personal and specified services than large clinics or service providers generally, or at least they would need to in order to be justified.

I am skeptical as to if those things would even be desirable, productive, or even possible once the market is abolished or completely controlled by the people.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've been a busy bee reading on the forums and reading outside books/materials as well. I keep seeing references to production as if it is referring to big companies only. (or my understanding is flawed)

So in Communism, is there room for "small businesses?" Or "sole proprietor" type businesses? Sex workers? Doggie yoga instructors? Individual provider medical services? (Like a person with a small acupuncture/psychiatry/chiropractic practice) And if so, how do they fit into the scheme of things?

I guess I'm having difficulty seeing the trees for the forest

I know I probably sound very ignorant

I think the classical Marxist position on these things is that they eventually get sucked into the undertow of capital anyway (i.e. capital gets consolidated and small businesses go under as capitalism progresses), so by the time an overthrow of capitalism occured it wouldn't be much of an issue anyway.

[Principia Ethica]

Thanks for answering!

I guess I'm having a hard time explaining/convincing people that the situation you describe is a "good" thing. I personally don't think there is anything morally reprehensible about say for example. . .a dog owner wanting to get their dog some massage therapy or something (I'm using pet issues because I suppose they for the most part seem frivolous) . . .shouldn't they be able to find someone who offers the service and exchange something for that service?

I'm in the deep south and people are scared sh*tless that what would happen under communism is what we have typically seen in movies. . .no or little choice. How do I convince someone that that is "good?" (Or for their own good?)

(I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding all of this.)

[Rafiq]

I don't think you're ignorant, I don't think anyone thinks that.

The best thing to keep in mind is that for Marx, communism was just the movement that would abolish the current state of things. Not something to be seen as a general state of affairs that is to be achieved. It is a process, an Ideal that society/reality will just have to adjust itself. We aren't here to make blueprints for the future.

[ArrowLance]

Thanks for answering!

I guess I'm having a hard time explaining/convincing people that the situation you describe is a "good" thing. I personally don't think there is anything morally reprehensible about say for example. . .a dog owner wanting to get their dog some massage therapy or something (I'm using pet issues because I suppose they for the most part seem frivolous) . . .shouldn't they be able to find someone who offers the service and exchange something for that service?

I'm in the deep south and people are scared sh*tless that what would happen under communism is what we have typically seen in movies. . .no or little choice. How do I convince someone that that is "good?" (Or for their own good?)

(I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding all of this.)

The concept of exchanging services for some sort of gain is that it is only possible when a person is seen to have exclusive rights over the capital and systems that allow them to exchange those services. The pet message therapist must utilize societal systems in order to reach those who want this service and in order to give something in exchange for that service the person seeking the service must have something that is also exclusively theirs. Usually what people mean by this is money. Money, being the embodiment of exchange value, implies the holders exclusive ownership of that value which would only be obtainable if they had exclusive rights to the capital which produced that value.

Of course people will always perform services for others on a friendly basis but not in a way that leads to their accumulation of capital.


When it comes to convincing persons of the benefits of communism I think it is easier to point out the conflict of capitalism and their class interests. Whether it be called communism or something else what we are advocating is the advancement of human social relations. It is obvious that the current relations of persons and capital is failing to provide for the interests of our class.

[Lorax]

Marx never went into much detail regarding setting rules about what should be allowed in a communist system and what shouldn't. He focused on analyzing the problems with capitalism that would, he believed, cause the capitalists to dig their own graves. Explosive Situation is exactly right as far as the classical Marxist perspective- small business people (people who employ others but also work) would eventually be forced back into the working. If a person is a "small business owner" but doesn't employ anyone, they are actually part of the proletariat as far as Marx was concerned. They are not self-employed: they are employed by the various people they sell their labor to.

In practice, so far at least, attempts to stamp out small business have been counterproductive and a poor use of government resources. Rather early on, the Soviet leadership decided they needed to allow some small business for the good of the country, and while many still held on to the goal of total elimination of private enterprise, it was never practical. This has been invariably true whenever ideologues tried to eliminate small businesses.

I don't think communists or the larger anti-capitalist community should bother much with small business owners. It's better to focus on collective ownership of our natural resources and larger industries.

[Principia Ethica]

Marx never went into much detail regarding setting rules about what should be allowed in a communist system and what shouldn't. He focused on analyzing the problems with capitalism that would, he believed, cause the capitalists to dig their own graves. Explosive Situation is exactly right as far as the classical Marxist perspective- small business people (people who employ others but also work) would eventually be forced back into the working. If a person is a "small business owner" but doesn't employ anyone, they are actually part of the proletariat as far as Marx was concerned. They are not self-employed: they are employed by the various people they sell their labor to.

In practice, so far at least, attempts to stamp out small business have been counterproductive and a poor use of government resources. Rather early on, the Soviet leadership decided they needed to allow some small business for the good of the country, and while many still held on to the goal of total elimination of private enterprise, it was never practical. This has been invariably true whenever ideologues tried to eliminate small businesses.

I don't think communists or the larger anti-capitalist community should bother much with small business owners. It's better to focus on collective ownership of our natural resources and larger industries.

Thanks so much for this! My father who is a self employed handyman works 10+ hours a day, comes home dead tired, and isn't "rich" by any means but "comfortable." I don't see him as bourgeois at all. . .but I guess the fact that he owns his own truck/tools etc might place him in the realm of being something other than just a plain "worker." (My dad is an awesome man by the way!)

I am also self employed. I view myself as a worker as well. It's just me. I do something that has a very niche demand and not a lot of people want to do it. In that sense I don't think I *can* exploit anyone and what I can or cannot earn depends strictly on market demand.

I guess for most people that I talk to, their main concern is being able to be them. . .and not something that someone else determines for them. Is that counter to communism? I certainly hope not because I truly believe that once everyone's "basic" needs are taken care of, they have the time/ability/means to realize their fully potential.

I'm glad I'm able to ask these questions here because discussing with the people around me is like the blind leading the blind. My friend asked me if under communism, would there no longer be Louis Vuitton bags. I'm guessing that those might be phased out SIMPLY because they are status symbols for the "haves" and something totally unobtainable for the "have-nots." OR. . .maybe under communism, no one will find the need to have one of those. I simply didn't answer her because for her personally, those answers would have been unpalatable.

Just by my views before I started exploring communism, my friends always called me a "commie" and I never was offended by it. So hopefully I can study it, learn about it, put my thoughts and arguments to the test here so that I can address their comments without doing damage to the cause

[Blake's Baby]

I don't know that there wouldn't be Louis Vitton bags after the revolution. What is a 'Louis Vitton bag' anyway? It's a bag. It's (supposed to be) well made. It has the name 'Louis Vitton' on it. If the workers at the Louis Vitton Bag Factory decided that their producing of bags was socially useful (after all, people need bags) maybe the Louis Vitton bag would continue.

It wouldn't be a status symbol any more, because within reason anyone could have one. It would be no more difficult to obtain than any other particular bag from any other factory. But as long at it fulfills a function in society (keeping things in, not falling apart) I don't see why they shouldn't continue.

[The Teacher]

My question has to do with things like resturants. It takes a lot of sweat to keep one going and its a type of work few people would do if they had the choice (I wish I had that choice) but people like resturants, they're nice.

Would resturants be collectively owned by the workers? How would new resturants emerge? Who would organize them? Something like a co-op grocery store?

[Jose Gracchus]

People can serve themselves. I find it hard to believe that you think no one likes to entertain and cook really good food, get praised, etc. This is the kind of thing that forms the core of enjoyable social life and community in other societies. It just goes to show how much our commodified society has destroyed even the ability to percieve non-servile relations.

[Principia Ethica]

People can serve themselves. I find it hard to believe that you think no one likes to entertain and cook really good food, get praised, etc. This is the kind of thing that forms the core of enjoyable social life and community in other societies. It just goes to show how much our commodified society has destroyed even the ability to percieve non-servile relations.

I don't mean to sound rude but what if there are people who want to study and excel at the culinary arts and those that want to do an exchange of some sort for it. . .I don't see who is being exploited or doing the exploiting.

I do love to cook and entertain but some times it's nice to gather with friends and family without having the organization facet of entertaining involved.

I don't mean to come off as pedantic but these are the "trivial" types of questions are posed to me all the time because it hits closer to home for them rather than them asking me about some "loftier" premise. I guess I'm the "token" commie in my circle (a title they gave me rather than one I've come out and professed) and I really don't want to say anything that would turn them off. . . not because I'm apologetic about my beliefs, but I'd rather not them spew the same regurgitated vitriol about communism especially if they are dead wrong about it. I'd rather them view communism neutrally or indifferent rather than rabidly against.

[ArrowLance]

I don't mean to sound rude but what if there are people who want to study and excel at the culinary arts and those that want to do an exchange of some sort for it. . .I don't see who is being exploited or doing the exploiting.

I do love to cook and entertain but some times it's nice to gather with friends and family without having the organization facet of entertaining involved.

I don't mean to come off as pedantic but these are the "trivial" types of questions are posed to me all the time because it hits closer to home for them rather than them asking me about some "loftier" premise. I guess I'm the "token" commie in my circle (a title they gave me rather than one I've come out and professed) and I really don't want to say anything that would turn them off. . . not because I'm apologetic about my beliefs, but I'd rather not them spew the same regurgitated vitriol about communism especially if they are dead wrong about it. I'd rather them view communism neutrally or indifferent rather than rabidly against.

Again there are problems when you come into the concept of exchange. How is this exchange possible? To exchange both parties must have a commodity to which they have exclusive rights. With exclusive rights it is really a non-step between performing in the culinary arts and becoming an employer. Of course you could say the employees are their by choice, but then you are missing the entire premise of communism.

Remember that for the chef to exchange his service commodity he must be seen to have proprietary rights over the kitchen, food, and education he received. The only exchanges possible must be facilitated by society as a whole. Many people enjoy the idea that this will be done by the principle 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' but I feel that concept is too restrictive. Nonetheless all exchanges must be facilitated by the community as the community is the only body which has the right to command commodities in the absence of private property.

With that in mind it is completely believable that the luxury of restaurants will still be produced, the same way movies or books will. People enjoy them, so they agree that it is a commodity they would like to see produced and they move resources around to that end.

On another note, and I don't mean to sound like a scolding school teacher, if you are really interested in communism the fastest way to learn is to read materials written by communist theorists for the purpose of explaining these things. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is the traditional starting point, and Das Kapital, although dense, has an amazing wealth of information a lot of which pertains to the questions you have been asking in this thread.

I'm sure I could help you on a more individual basis as well If you are looking for things to read. But if you are interested don't worry too much about what to read because almost anything on the topic will further your understanding. There is also a thread on this forum dedicated to such materials: http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft-re...793/index.html

Most of those have links to locations on the internet which host the full text so there is no need to go searching a library.

[Principia Ethica]

Thanks for the insight. I don't take it as "preachy" at all. Right now I'm reading the Communist Manifesto. Almost done. Then I plan to read "Wage Labor and Capital." Then maybe Das Kapital. Or if you have any suggestions as to other things I should read before Das Kapital. I'm looking forward to reading it but it seems so daunting.

[ArrowLance]

Thanks for the insight. I don't take it as "preachy" at all. Right now I'm reading the Communist Manifesto. Almost done. Then I plan to read "Wage Labor and Capital." Then maybe Das Kapital. Or if you have any suggestions as to other things I should read before Das Kapital. I'm looking forward to reading it but it seems so daunting.

A personal favorite of mine is The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky by Lenin

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't mean to sound rude but what if there are people who want to study and excel at the culinary arts and those that want to do an exchange of some sort for it. . .I don't see who is being exploited or doing the exploiting.

I do love to cook and entertain but some times it's nice to gather with friends and family without having the organization facet of entertaining involved.

I don't mean to come off as pedantic but these are the "trivial" types of questions are posed to me all the time because it hits closer to home for them rather than them asking me about some "loftier" premise. I guess I'm the "token" commie in my circle (a title they gave me rather than one I've come out and professed) and I really don't want to say anything that would turn them off. . . not because I'm apologetic about my beliefs, but I'd rather not them spew the same regurgitated vitriol about communism especially if they are dead wrong about it. I'd rather them view communism neutrally or indifferent rather than rabidly against.

Communism isn't sold door to door like insurance or Mormonism.

I don't think its going to turn down on shit like whether people can make bank as a celebrity chef or not, when this is the real state of things.

[Principia Ethica]

Communism isn't sold door to door like insurance or Mormonism.

I don't think its going to turn down on shit like whether people can make bank as a celebrity chef or not, when this is the real state of things.

I saw that link earlier this week and I was totally nauseous. I'd like to believe you when you say that [QUOTE= I don't think its going to turn down on shit like whether people can make bank as a celebrity chef or not [/QUOTE] when the majority of southerners would benefit from running as fast as they can from the republican party. . .but they don't. They cling on to the republican party like a dingleberry clings onto someone's ass. This doesn't give me any confidence that the majority of people (around me) can or will look at the situation objectively and come to the conclusion that the current system isn't working. They will probably blame immigration, "liberal" politicians, anything OTHER than a flawed system.

I guess this is why I feel I need my arguments to be strong and cogent in totally getting rid of the flawed system. I'm fighting years of accumulated misinformation and dogma (when interacting with these people.)

Weird how I want better for them but they want to hold on to a system that will probably keep them and all of their posterity near or below the poverty line.