[lbo-talk] "Capitalists" and "the rich"

[Bill Bartlett]

At 9:43 AM -0400 6/6/07, Marvin Gandall wrote:

>Small producers like farmers and small distributors like corner grocers are
>simply small capitalists.

This is such a vague assertion. What do you mean by "small"? If you 
include self-employed, contractors etc who employ no one else in 
their business within this definition, then you would be quite wrong.

The small shop-keeper or other small business operator who employs 
only their own labour (along with perhaps immediate family members) 
is not a capitalist in any meaningful way simply by virtue of their 
"ownership of the means of production". This is intuitively obvious 
when the operators of such businesses must rely on their own labour 
to make a living. If you want to get all hung up on the niceties of 
"ownership of the means of production" making the capitalist, then 
you only need to take a hard look at whether or not such owner 
operator businesses even own any such means of production in a 
meaningful way.

Technically, legally, perhaps they have ownership. But often a close 
look at the balance sheet of such a business would reveal that such 
title is weighed against significant non-current liabilities, such as 
a bloody great mortgage or two.

"Ownership" of the means of production? Forget it, most owner 
operated businesses are a form of disguised slavery even more 
oppressive than that suffered by wage workers. That is when the 
"assets" (mortgaged or otherwise) can even be considered part of the 
*socially necessary* means of production to begin with.

To illustrate what I mean, I'll use the example of the Bracknell 
General Store. It was a small grocery store, newsagency and general 
merchandise store here in the sleepy (OK, comatose) village of 
Bracknell Tasmania. Been operating for over 120 years So I 
understand. Anyhow, the middle aged proprietor lived on the premises 
along with his wife and they owned and between them staffed the store 
about 10 hours a day, 7 days a week 363 days a year.

I don't know what their turnover was, but as far as I could tell they 
weren't registered for GST, which any private business with a 
turnover of more than $50,000 PA was legally obliged to be. (Mind 
you, I never once saw them ring up a purchase on their cash register 
either, so it wouldn't be easy for the Tax office to pin down exactly 
what their turnover was. I doubt they would know themselves for sure. 
But all the same, they would still have to leave some kind of paper 
trail in the *purchase* of stock, so the real business couldn't have 
been terribly much in excess of $50K PA.)

They had the business (and attached residence) on the market for a 
couple of years, but couldn't get any takers, so last year they 
simply closed it and renovated the storefront as part of the house. 
Now the house is up for sale, sans general store. Here it is, for 
anyone interested:

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=103609935&f=10&p=10&t=res&ty=&fmt=&header=&c=27760846&s=tas&tm=1181142640

The lesson, basically, is that the business that they owned could 
not, in the present day, be considered part of the "means of 
production and exchange" in a socially necessary or useful way. Its 
more analagous to ownership of a hand loom. Sure, a few hundred years 
ago a hand loom was a meaningful part of the means of production. But 
not now. Likewise a small general store is redundant technology and 
ownership of one will no more make you a capitalist in the year 2007 
than ownership of a hand loom would make you a capitalist.

You might as well consider a bricklayer who owns a trowel and a 
wheelbarrow to be a capitalist, on the basis that he owns his own 
"means of production."

You could go into this a lot deeper, with lofty analysis of all the 
technical terms, but there's no point. Its intuitive that if you have 
to work for a living, whether for a boss or as a self-exploited owner 
operator, then you ain't no capitalist.  Small or otherwise. You're 
simply working class.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas