Opposing big business: an opportunist adaptation to petit-bourgeois consciousness

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've noticed that a lot of posters here - and certain ostensibly socialist organisations - make much of their opposition to big business, or to "corporations" and so on. Now, anyone familiar with socialist politics is surely aware that socialists oppose all forms of capitalism, business in general. Marx's critique of capitalism applies to small businesses as much as to the largest corporate entities. In fact some of the small businesses straddle the line between capitalist enterprise and artisans engaged in petty commodity production, a thoroughly obsolete social form almost wiped out by capitalism.

In fact, large-scale industrial cartels and trusts, chartered as corporations and closely connected to the financial oligarchies of the imperialist metropole, represent the most advanced form of capitalism, both the most rapacious and expansive, and the most orderly and rational - in fact these entities are the closest (along with wartime planning) that capitalism comes to the socialised planned economy that socialists advocate (although this "closest" is not that much). Hence Lenin's slogan - "through cartels into socialism".

It seems to me that the prevalence of anti-corporate views is due to the opportunism of many ostensible socialists, and the deeply reactionary climate of the current period, which draws ostensible socialists to the ruined petite-bourgeoisie (as the social-democrat traitors were drawn to these same strata after WWI). Because opposition to large-scale enterprise is characteristic of the small artisan or farmer, who wishes to protect his private property but is at the same time mortally frightened of being out-competed by the more efficient big business.

This is also notable in the adoption by many ostensible socialists of populist slogans about "the 99%", which obviously includes not just the petite bourgeoisie and all of the middleman strata but also a large section of the haute bourgeoisie, and even explicit theoretical revisions of Marxism that erase every class and social stratum except the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, implicitly extending the term "proletariat" to cover the petite bourgeoisie.

What does the rest of RevLeft think about this?

[helot]

You know, this is why i spend more time attacking small businesses than large ones. It's especially saddening when you come across a worker trying to defend the petit bourgeois despite the fact that often it's worse to work for them but to have supposed socialists doing it? Shit, they should know better.

[Rafiq]

The difference is that small businesses are reactionary even within capitalism, and are therefore worse.

[exeexe]

oppose all forms of capitalism, business in general

How do you define business in this context?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How do you define business in this context?

In this context? Business (uncountable) is the same as capitalism - businesses (countable) are the commercial, privately-owned (or owner by the bourgeois state) entities that produce commodities for exchange on the market.

[Creative Destruction]

I agree with that. I never understood why Marxists, especially Marxists within the Occupy movement, thought that "99%" was a good slogan to attach to other than opportunism. Small businesses entail all the same issues as a large corporation does, and sometimes worse. You're more likely to get your wages ripped off and get shitty benefits with a small business than a corporation, for example.

[exeexe]

Business (uncountable) is the same as capitalism

The thing is under capitalism you have exploitation while business as a general term doesn't necessarily entails exploitation nor wage labor.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The thing is under capitalism you have exploitation while business as a general term doesn't necessarily entails exploitation nor wage labor.

Perhaps, but I'm not overly concerned about what something means as "a general term" because, concretely, in 2014, capitalism is the dominant global mode of production, and the only businesses that don't have wage-labour and exploitation are, once again, small artisans engaged in petty commodity production. But socialists oppose petty commodity production as well.

[exeexe]

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.
So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articl..._socialism.php

So in socialism you have a society that can provide for ones needs. Thats nice. But most people would like to use stuff they dont need. Like toys for the kids or a gaming computer for the teenager or a boat for the adult. How would that come about when

the sole object of production would be to meet human needs

?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic, but whether things like games and boats are needs (you do realise how removing every form of entertainment would affect people, right?) is a semantic quibble, and is in any case besides the point. The members of society will reach an agreement on what is to be produced. If people want to have Playstation 9 units, then the general social plan will include production of Playstation 9. We certainly do not wish to limit people to the bare necessities of life, as if socialism could ever be equal to generalised poverty.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articl..._socialism.php

So in socialism you have a society that can provide for ones needs. Thats nice. But most people would like to use stuff they dont need. Like toys for the kids or a gaming computer for the teenager or a boat for the adult. How would that come about when
?

Part of human need is the need to be mentally healthy and part of being mentally healthy is having the option of being able to participate in social activities that might require seemingly pointless commodities (video games, toys etc). In this way, creative production is just as necessary as agriculture etc.

[exeexe]

I don't see how this is relevant to the topic

Maybe i didn't understand the topic. So i read it again. Is the topic about how the 99% can cover small capitalists and how socialists can be in the same boat as the small capitalists?
And if we even should go down that road with the 99%?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Maybe i didn't understand the topic. So i read it again. Is the topic about how the 99% can cover small capitalists and how socialists can be in the same boat as the small capitalists?
And if we even should go down that road with the 99%?

What.

The topic is about ostensible socialists who proclaim themselves to be primarily (and sometimes only) against big business, or against corporations and so on, and about opportunistic slogans about the so-called 99%, which erase class distinctions between the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie, and the "small" haute bourgeoisie for that matter.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think there are a couple of possible causes which relate to the nature of the post-WWII economy. We should look for the explanation there, because I think it is a genuine rhetorical response to the actual social and economic conditions of many workers, and what socialist agitators think that they find appealing. It also relates to the long, hard ideological work of moderate social democrats and liberals to draw the working class into a "big tent" party with the interests of "good" big businesses and "nice" small businesses etc

There is first off, an ideological confusion, which confuses living standards with economic class. Working class people are not understood as those who have a certain relation to the means of production, but those who are generally poor. Middle class people are no longer understood as businessmen, but anyone with a moderate standard of living. As such, people lose sight of the traditional Marxist analysis.

Secondly, workers themselves in certain sectors have seen their living standards improve, to the point where a tenured teacher or professor with a decent amount of seniority can easily make as much money annually as the owner of a shitty diner downtown. In a world where class-based rhetoric is confused with rhetoric on living standards, this becomes an issue for anyone trying to raise class consciousness. This might be changing in the long-term with the economic slowdown and the stagnation of "middle class" wages since the 70s in the US.

I think this has made class-based rhetoric regarding the struggle between the working class and the owners of the means of production seem less relevant to workers. As such, socialists end up adopting a rich-vs-poor rhetoric which simplifies the class divisions.

Part of it also might just be the historical irrelevance of the petit bourgeoisie too. They are hardly a disappearing class, but they are not as relevant in the current political system as the "big businesses"/corporations/etc. I think the small business has become somewhat invisible outside of moronic myths like the "American Dream" which gets bandied about by politicians.

Perhaps, but I'm not overly concerned about what something means as "a general term" because, concretely, in 2014, capitalism is the dominant global mode of production, and the only businesses that don't have wage-labour and exploitation are, once again, small artisans engaged in petty commodity production. But socialists oppose petty commodity production as well.

It should be noted that socialists don't oppose the petty commodity producers themselves though, but the general system of petty production. Obviously we want such artisans to find a social use for their skills independently of the market.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think anyone meant to say we ought to take artisans out back and shoot them. But then again, it is equally true to say we are not opposed to the bourgeoisie as persons.

As for the rest, I broadly agree, but I think saying that "socialists end up adopting a rich-vs-poor" rhetoric, first of all, oversimplifies the matter (as there are quite a few socialist or ostensibly-socialist organisations that have not done so), and second, can be read as an endorsement of this adoption (I'm not necessarily saying that was your intention).

And whatever the numbers of the petite bourgeoisie, their social power and power to stay on the market is as low as it has been since the beginning of capitalism. That is why we talk of them as a ruined class - this refers to the petite bourgeoisie in the strictest sense, mind. Some of the middleman layers are doing quite alright.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't think anyone meant to say we ought to take artisans out back and shoot them. But then again, it is equally true to say we are not opposed to the bourgeoisie as persons.

Sure, I know you don't think think that. I think one rhetorical problem Communists face though (perhaps thanks to generations of anti-Capitalist propaganda, and the unnecessarily harsh violence of various Stalinist states) is that people really do think Marxists are proposing that when they declare their "opposition" to that class - or the very least, they think it means their impoverishment.

Of course we all know that in theory, true communism would give far more freedom to the average artisan since they no longer need to submit to what "the market" demands, but I don't think the average non-communist knows that.

As for the rest, I broadly agree, but I think saying that "socialists end up adopting a rich-vs-poor" rhetoric, first of all, oversimplifies the matter (as there are quite a few socialist or ostensibly-socialist organisations that have not done so), and second, can be read as an endorsement of this adoption (I'm not necessarily saying that was your intention).

Perhaps many groups don't, but it does seem to be a common tactic for socialists or left-leaning groups to reach out and get more attention or support from an otherwise unreceptive audience.

Nor do I want to endorse it. I just want to get at the conditions that lead to such rhetoric. I don't think these socialists are doing it to undermine their movement or the possibility of revolution. It is just a problematic response to certain conditions.

[exeexe]

What.

The topic is about ostensible socialists who proclaim themselves to be primarily (and sometimes only) against big business, or against corporations and so on, and about opportunistic slogans about the so-called 99%, which erase class distinctions between the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie, and the "small" haute bourgeoisie for that matter.

Well i think its important to have class distinctions, but on the other hand if we observe how wealth is distributed in our society we observe a distribution of wealth that even for capitalists seems to be too unbearable.

I have my own little theory which is about that we are no longer living under capitalism or that we are in a transition period toward the next big thing and its not socialism, anarchism or facism. I think the next big paradigm gonna be financialism or bankerism (unless we stop it). The capitalist class is no longer powerful enough to produce so much instability so that society will come crashing down. The financial elite has become so powerful that they can steer society back into an economical balance. And with that comes a paradigm shift. When people talk about the 99% they dont refer to just distribution of wealth but also that the capitalist mode of production are no longer dominating society - consciously or not.

But ofcourse class distinctions are still important because as working class we can stop working and no bank or financial institute can recoup from the effects of that.

[Loony Le Fist]

I've noticed that a lot of posters here - and certain ostensibly socialist organisations - make much of their opposition to big business, or to "corporations" and so on. Now, anyone familiar with socialist politics is surely aware that socialists oppose all forms of capitalism, business in general. Marx's critique of capitalism applies to small businesses as much as to the largest corporate entities. In fact some of the small businesses straddle the line between capitalist enterprise and artisans engaged in petty commodity production, a thoroughly obsolete social form almost wiped out by capitalism.

Agreed. Capitalism is capitalism. Whether we are talking about an overall economic ecosystem consisting of large businesses or small ones. I like to call a spade and spade, so we are on the same page. However, IIRC, Marx did recognize that small businesses are exploited too. I know for a fact that Bakunin did.

Mikhail Bakunin, The Capitalist System
Production thus constituted, monopolized, exploited by bourgeois capital, is pushed on the one hand by the mutual competition of the capitalists to concentrate evermore in the hands of an ever diminishing number of powerful capitalists, or in the hands of joint-stock companies which, owing to the merging of their capital, are more powerful than the biggest isolated capitalists. (And the small and medium-sized capitalists, not being able to produce at the same price as the big capitalists, naturally succumb in the deadly struggle.) On the other hand, all enterprises are forced by the same competition to sell their products at the lowest possible price. It [capitalist monopoly] can attain this two-fold result only by forcing out an ever-growing number of small or medium-sized capitalists, speculators, merchants, or industrialists, from the world of exploiters into the world of the exploited proletariat, and at the same time squeezing out ever greater savings from the wages of the same proletariat.

The biggest exploiters are big business. It would make sense to concentrate opposition on a common enemy. It's important to be principled, but I think it's acceptable to be opportunistic. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of popular opposition to big business to provide us the wedge to catapult leftist ideas into the discourse. Theoretics don't elevate ideas into the consciousness of the masses. This is something we desperately need. When your enemy is large and well funded while you are small--sometimes you must sacrifice principle in the short run to gain the advantage.

In fact, large-scale industrial cartels and trusts, chartered as corporations and closely connected to the financial oligarchies of the imperialist metropole, represent the most advanced form of capitalism, both the most rapacious and expansive, and the most orderly and rational - in fact these entities are the closest (along with wartime planning) that capitalism comes to the socialised planned economy that socialists advocate (although this "closest" is not that much). Hence Lenin's slogan - "through cartels into socialism".

I can see your point about the similarities. However, the power structures of these institutions have many differences. These cartels and trusts are organized more like mini-dictatorships. As far as being the closest one comes to a socialist planned economy under a capitalist society, I think that's going to depend on the socialist you speak to.

It seems to me that the prevalence of anti-corporate views is due to the opportunism of many ostensible socialists, and the deeply reactionary climate of the current period, which draws ostensible socialists to the ruined petite-bourgeoisie (as the social-democrat traitors were drawn to these same strata after WWI).

Like I said before, nothing wrong with a little opportunism. Leftists ought to take every opportunity to be heard. If it means taking advantage riding on some populist waves to introduce a more egalitarian society, I'm just fine with that. You can't win with an all or nothing attitude.

Because opposition to large-scale enterprise is characteristic of the small artisan or farmer, who wishes to protect his private property but is at the same time mortally frightened of being out-competed by the more efficient big business.

It is also this mortally frightened artisan or farmer who is now malleable to listening to information from opposition sources. We can use their fear as a way in. After all it is quite justified. Those who are scared seek answers. Should we allow some reactionaries to fill their heads with nonsense, or should we step in and engage and use their justifiable feelings as a galvanizing tool to spread our ideas and educate people.

This is also notable in the adoption by many ostensible socialists of populist slogans about "the 99%", which obviously includes not just the petite bourgeoisie and all of the middleman strata but also a large section of the haute bourgeoisie, and even explicit theoretical revisions of Marxism that erase every class and social stratum except the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, implicitly extending the term "proletariat" to cover the petite bourgeoisie.

I think we can actually have a discussion as to whether some of the so called petit bourgeois are actually like proletariat. After all, even the wage-slave proletariat have minimum wage protection from the state (though that doesn't apply to undocumented workers). SBOs in the petit bourgeois do not even get that protection. In some ways, they are worse off.

[thriller]

Speaking as just one out of the many workers of the world I can say I have been exploited and put in hazardous conditions just as much at small businesses as when I worked at big businesses.

Speaking as a socialist, the idea of anti-corporation and pro-"mom and pop" stores does seems prevalent in leftist thought today. I have heard many socialist argue along the lines that "we are not against the small grocery store in Small Town, USA, but against Wal-Mart which makes it harder for those small shops to grow." It can be easy to be apologetic for petite-bourgeois businesses in small towns because many people have an allegiance, or romanticized, view of the local shop. Socialists may feel cornered if they attack petite-bourgeois people right off the bat, so they put 'em on the back burner, and usually forget about them.

Because opposition to large-scale enterprise is characteristic of the small artisan or farmer, who wishes to protect his private property but is at the same time mortally frightened of being out-competed by the more efficient big business.

Here is a vital point, at least in relation to the US (my only in-depth experience with a capitalist society, I know the US is not the world). The typical farmer of the US has always know of the idea of private property. Further more the farmer has known owning the means of production, that is the farmers tools, seed, machinery, silos, etc. But now with corporate farms springing up, some leftists tend bring up the old idealized farmer as a counter to corporate infiltration into a town, which lead of course to the problem of private property and an old petty commodity way of production. This needs to be avoided, but can be difficult.

For myself, there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the workers. The classes in between are not the main driving force of potential revolutionary change. But they can also not be completely ignored. Making socialist change at small businesses may be easier because there can be less numerical resistance. Starting in smaller shops, and working up to the global corporations may serve to help change society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sure, I know you don't think think that. I think one rhetorical problem Communists face though (perhaps thanks to generations of anti-Capitalist propaganda, and the unnecessarily harsh violence of various Stalinist states) is that people really do think Marxists are proposing that when they declare their "opposition" to that class - or the very least, they think it means their impoverishment.

Well - as you might be aware of, I live in a former glacis state, the former Yugoslavia (everything is former here, including my hair...). And I honestly haven't encountered this notion much, although I do talk to people about politics a lot. And I don't mean r-r-radical students, I mean people like janitors, taxi drivers and so on. The only people I have heard make this claim are our own little Solzhenitsyns.

Of course we all know that in theory, true communism would give far more freedom to the average artisan since they no longer need to submit to what "the market" demands, but I don't think the average non-communist knows that.

One has to be careful here, I think. In communism there will be no artisans, just as there will be no proles etc. And people will have to follow the social plan, although this is simply a matter of playing nice and cooperating with other people. In the transitional period, who knows? Kustar production in Russia had to be tightly regulated, for example (in fact I think one of the departments of the VSNKh was dedicated to that task alone).

Perhaps many groups don't, but it does seem to be a common tactic for socialists or left-leaning groups to reach out and get more attention or support from an otherwise unreceptive audience.

Nor do I want to endorse it. I just want to get at the conditions that lead to such rhetoric. I don't think these socialists are doing it to undermine their movement or the possibility of revolution. It is just a problematic response to certain conditions.

Well, of course very few people (then again, there are people like Marcus-LaRouche) consciously set out to sabotage the socialist movement, but their response shows the fatal flaw of their politics - ignoring the long-term historic mission of the proletariat in favour of limited, immediate appetites.

Well i think its important to have class distinctions, but on the other hand if we observe how wealth is distributed in our society we observe a distribution of wealth that even for capitalists seems to be too unbearable.

I have my own little theory which is about that we are no longer living under capitalism or that we are in a transition period toward the next big thing and its not socialism, anarchism or facism. I think the next big paradigm gonna be financialism or bankerism (unless we stop it). The capitalist class is no longer powerful enough to produce so much instability so that society will come crashing down. The financial elite has become so powerful that they can steer society back into an economical balance. And with that comes a paradigm shift. When people talk about the 99% they dont refer to just distribution of wealth but that the capitalist mode of production are no longer dominating society - consciously or not.

Sorry, but to be perfectly honest this sounds more like American (or American-derived) populism than socialism. First of all the wealth disparities today are generally not at the level of, for example, the Gilded Age (and now I'm thinking in American terms, akh), or the time of the Corn Laws, not in the metropole at least. Second, bankers are capitalists. They own capital which they invest in production - just as the industrial capitalists. The increasing role of the financial sector is something many Marxist theorists have noted. But it doesn't change the fundamental character of the system.

Agreed. Capitalism is capitalism. Whether we are talking about an overall economic ecosystem consisting of large businesses or small ones. I like to call a spade and spade, so we are on the same page. However, IIRC, Marx did recognize that small businesses are exploited too. I know for a fact that Bakunin did.

Marx recognised no such thing. He noted that, historically, the proletariat arose partly out of the mass of ruined artisans, and that petty commodity production can no longer compete with capitalism in the strict sense. But "exploitation" is a technical term in Marxist thought; it can not refer to small businesses.

The biggest exploiters are big business.

Actually, as several people have pointed out, small business-owners can and do bleed their workers dry, sometimes worse than the "evil" corporations.

It would make sense to concentrate opposition on a common enemy. It's important to be principled, but I think it's acceptable to be opportunistic. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of popular opposition to big business to provide us the wedge to catapult leftist ideas into the discourse. Theoretics don't elevate ideas into the consciousness of the masses. This is something we desperately need. When your enemy is large and well funded while you are small--sometimes you must sacrifice principle in the short run to gain the advantage.

And here is the chief problem. You think opportunism is alright. Well, the entire history of the workers' movement shows that you are wrong. The opportunists do not accomplish anything, except perhaps kill some workers if they're really lucky and their bourgeois masters are particularly desperate. To talk about opportunism as something positive in light of the experience of WWI and the postwar period sounds like a particularly morbid joke.

And socialists do not want to "catapult leftist ideas into the discourse", we aren't selling socialism and throwing in a free milkshake (offer available while supplies last). Socialism requires class consciousness, something that is born from the conjunction of class struggle and socialist agitation and propaganda (Links is going to kill me for this, I think). Not advertisement and passive "oh it's a good idea maybe I'll vote for those people" acceptance.

I can see your point about the similarities. However, the power structures of these institutions have many differences. These cartels and trusts are organized more like mini-dictatorships. As far as being the closest one comes to a socialist planned economy under a capitalist society, I think that's going to depend on the socialist you speak to.

Small businesses are also "mini-dictatorship". The point was that these entities organise production on a large scale, over an extensive territory, in a manner that is more rational than the one used by small businesses, and where the administrative allocation of resources and services predominates.

It is also this mortally frightened artisan or farmer who is now malleable to listening to information from opposition sources. We can use their fear as a way in. After all it is quite justified. Those who are scared seek answers. Should we allow some reactionaries to fill their heads with nonsense, or should we step in and engage and use their justifiable feelings as a galvanizing tool to spread our ideas and educate people.

Why would the member of the petite bourgeoisie fight for socialism? They can, but it goes against their class interest. If something else ties them to socialism, the project of the liberation of humanity, then that should be addressed. But the mortally frightened petite bourgeoisie, pursuing its short-term interest, produces only - fascism.

I think we can actually have a discussion as to whether some of the so called petit bourgeois are actually like proletariat. After all, even the wage-slave proletariat have minimum wage protection from the state (though that doesn't apply to undocumented workers). SBOs in the petit bourgeois do not even get that protection. In some ways, they are worse off.

Perhaps they are, but the proletariat is the revolutionary class not because it is impoverished or worse-off than other classes, but because it alone has the social power to bring down capitalism, being the class of labourers in the modern economy.