Small business owners, in some sense, do have more in common with the proletariat than they realize. Their economic situation is usually very precarious - at any time, if business slows down they will find themselves as part of the proletarians if they lose their business. This happens fairly often under capitalism. Further, ruthless competition among capitalists means the capitalist economy trends toward monopoly - squeezing out small business owners.
I have a friend who is a capitalist (inherited the family business). I once asked him what he liked about being a business owner. He didn't use these exact words, but essentially he loves making a lot of money and being "the boss" i.e. holding power over people. He doesn't actually care that much about the work itself. And frankly he isn't very good at it, but the business he inherited was already pretty successful.
Then you have my dad, who is also a small business owner. He doesn't have any employees. He does it because he loves that line of work; he doesn't really make that much money from it. But he's at the age where he could retire but he doesn't want to because he enjoys the actual work - meeting with people, working with them on solutions, etc.
Under socialism, there's plenty of opportunities for people like my dad and I suspect your parents as well. You still definitely need people who can manage a team, run an enterprise, etc. My dad could still basically do the exact same work under socialism and it wouldn't really be any different. In Cuba today, this is actually fairly prevalent, people who basically run their own one-person shops. But this still applies to situations where you manage people. Honestly, there's no reason your parents couldn't do what they do now but under socialism. Granted, they may report to some planning entity (or not, depending on the stage and nature of socialism) but all the "managing" stuff is still just as valuable under socialism, if not moreso.
Now what would be different under socialism would be a.) you're not gonna make a fortune, although income could be higher than people that report to them. This is how every socialist country has operated so far - income distinctions, but not so much that you are creating class distinctions. And b.) you can't be a dictator over the people that report to you. Workers have rights and socialism usually entails more democracy in the workplace. But even in a situation like a co-op, you need people who can make managerial decisions and "run" the enterprise.
So if you parents enjoy the work for what it is, then no reason they couldn't enjoy things under socialism (maybe even more, given that the precarity would be gone). But people like my friend, they obviously would hate it but if your reason for being a small business owner is the obscene wealth and controlling people... then yeah socialism isn't for you.
Great questions!
Re: Section 24
Small business owners, in some sense, do have more in common with the proletariat than they realize. Their economic situation is usually very precarious - at any time, if business slows down they will find themselves as part of the proletarians if they lose their business. This happens fairly often under capitalism. Further, ruthless competition among capitalists means the capitalist economy trends toward monopoly - squeezing out small business owners.
I have a friend who is a capitalist (inherited the family business). I once asked him what he liked about being a business owner. He didn't use these exact words, but essentially he loves making a lot of money and being "the boss" i.e. holding power over people. He doesn't actually care that much about the work itself. And frankly he isn't very good at it, but the business he inherited was already pretty successful.
Then you have my dad, who is also a small business owner. He doesn't have any employees. He does it because he loves that line of work; he doesn't really make that much money from it. But he's at the age where he could retire but he doesn't want to because he enjoys the actual work - meeting with people, working with them on solutions, etc.
Under socialism, there's plenty of opportunities for people like my dad and I suspect your parents as well. You still definitely need people who can manage a team, run an enterprise, etc. My dad could still basically do the exact same work under socialism and it wouldn't really be any different. In Cuba today, this is actually fairly prevalent, people who basically run their own one-person shops. But this still applies to situations where you manage people. Honestly, there's no reason your parents couldn't do what they do now but under socialism. Granted, they may report to some planning entity (or not, depending on the stage and nature of socialism) but all the "managing" stuff is still just as valuable under socialism, if not moreso.
Now what would be different under socialism would be a.) you're not gonna make a fortune, although income could be higher than people that report to them. This is how every socialist country has operated so far - income distinctions, but not so much that you are creating class distinctions. And b.) you can't be a dictator over the people that report to you. Workers have rights and socialism usually entails more democracy in the workplace. But even in a situation like a co-op, you need people who can make managerial decisions and "run" the enterprise.
So if you parents enjoy the work for what it is, then no reason they couldn't enjoy things under socialism (maybe even more, given that the precarity would be gone). But people like my friend, they obviously would hate it but if your reason for being a small business owner is the obscene wealth and controlling people... then yeah socialism isn't for you.
deleted by creator