I had a discussion with a girl I know about minimum wage (idk what her politics are exactly bc she's inconsistent but if I had to guess I'd say soc dem) and she was saying Biden's plan to increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 was the most ambitious plan in world history. She explained that with $15 min wage the US will have the highest minimum wage in the world, this was the best way to do it bc if we switched to $24 min wage overnight then small businesses would completely shut down and leave a large amount of the workforce unemployed and allow corporations like Amazon to take over.
I'll admit I'm newish to leftism and didn't really have an answer to this. Is there an argument from the left against this? also sorry to mods if I posted in the wrong place, wasn't exactly sure where this should go
Because a minimum wage increase of that magnitude should also be coupled with proper tax collection from the large corporations, a reduction in tax incentives for large businesses/chain businesses, and more effort to reduce monopolization among private business.
Reducing "monopolizatoin" and the "large business" boogeyman are not correct leftist takes. There is nothing inherently wrong with giant enterprises. Economies of scale make large businesses more efficient. A communist world would be dominated by giant enterprises purely due to reasons of efficiency. Also the "large=monopoly" is not based on economic reality. Large firms face the same competitive pressures as smaller ones. See Anwar Shaikh on youtube for the concept of real competition.
there's a lot to disassemble here, and while i agree that large businesses just come with population growth/efficiency/automation, if you're going to mention that reducing monopolization is an 'incorrect' take you have to mention that that's only due to the fact that a lot of businesses that get that big should be nationalized.
seeing as how we're pretty far from achieving anything close to socialization, reducing monopolization through regulation is definitely a step that needs to be taken in the meantime.
i feel like there's probably a decent amount of information that discredits your claim that 'large firms face the same competition pressures as small ones' but i haven't done the research, just seems like common sense.
It is "common sense" according to both bourgeois economists and some sections of heterodox economists, but Anwar Shaikh's political economic work put that idea to rest. I highly recommend checking out his youtube videos where he gives lectures on Marxian political economy.
I think that unionization is a much better idea than regulations for large corps.
These ideas don't come from Anwar Shaikh, they come from Joseph Schumpeter, an early 20th century socdem economist, and they do have some problems when you consider them under a more systemic lens. Namely the immense power they hold.
You say a communist world would be dominated by large enterprises. A communist world would have nationalised them. But also more or less any attempt at socialism by any country actually retained heavily regulated small businesses, because they are well suited for some sectors of the economy.
I would really recommend you watch his video on real competition on YT. The immense power of large firms mean nothing when they are competing against equally large firms. In fact, large firms are more competitive because they can simply exit markets where they are underperforming without taking too much of a hit while small businesses would have to limp on or go bankrupt.
By "communism", you are actually referring to the social democracy practised by USSR, Cuba etc. Marx never argued for simply nationalizing businesses. Socialism is about abolishing the commodity form entirely, and not after "developing productive forces" but immediately. Who owns the firm makes no difference. During class struggle, do the workers care whether their firm is privately owned or state owned? If anything, workers would rather have their firm owned by themselves rather than the state.
Enterprises in communism would simply be free associations of workers producing use-values. The enterprises do not make money, like they did/do in "AESC". So the very concept of "ownership" would make zero sense.
I don't see what regulating small businesses has anything to do with socialism or even class struggle. The fact that such "attempts at socialism" retained capitalist firms at all reveals the actual nature of those attempts.
You're misinterpreting my remarks about power to be about market competition but that's not really what it is about. And yes, I have watched Anwar Shaikh's lectures.
Marx actually did argue for nationalising businesses at an intermediate stage. And he also didn't argue for abolishing the commodity form immediately regardless of the state of productive forces. I seriously don't know where you are getting all that from.
I don't understand why you are even bringing up the large enterprises "under communism" when talking about large enterprises in capitalism when by "under communism" you don't mean some kind of intermediate stage but something totally different to the capitalist case in every way.
It's to make a point that centralization is not a bad thing. I was responding to a comment that said that large firms need to be broken up. I said it's not something we will be doing under communism, and neither does it need to be done under capitalism as large firms are as competitive as smaller ones. The power that large firms have is not solved by breaking them up, you would just end up with more slightly smaller firms that engage in the same regulatory capture. So it's not really a leftist position to "break up the big corps", it's more a socdem "save capitalism from itself" thing.
Whether or not we do nationalize businesses is something that should be decided by the workers of the businesses themselves. The task of building socialism is something done by the workers themselves. I doubt the workers of firms would allow their firm to be nationalized. There is no such argument made by Marx that socialism depended on " the state of productive forces." He simply said that it is more likely for socialism to succeed in capitalist countries. Almost all countries in the world outside of Africa are already fully subsumed under capitalism. These arguments about what a socialist society would exactly look like are kind of pointless, as socialism is the real movement of the working class in overthrowing capitalism and not some intellectual's conception of it. Nationalization under socialism makes no sense, and nationalization under capitalism is not always progressive. It is better for workers to control capital rather than the bourgeois state.
No one is talking about centralization. The subject is big businesses, that's not the same.
What?
You can look at many, many examples of nationalised firms, the control workers have over them (and I don't mean the indirect control via elections etc) is much greater than the control a private employee has, which is why people much prefer to work in the public sector in such countries.
Marx did argue for nationalisation (or at least what people call nationalisation today). It makes perfect sense. It is unclear what you think workers controlling capital means practically. Are you just gonna make everything into a market socialist coop? In practice, a great deal of centralised coordination will be needed to even take a crack at abolishing the commodity form, and that's the whole point of the state. It is one thing learning from mistakes of the past and another thing just eschewing every past attempt to ho back to 0 basically.
And yet here you are talking about the form of enterprises under socialism. When you repeat left on talking points, try to make them coherent and relevant to the conversation.
Its the same thing lol. Stop being a pedant
You probably think socialism is what an entity external to the workers does and not what workers build themselves. In historical practice, the nationalization of firms was done against the will of the working class, who usually formed spontaneous worker councils. Nationalization=socialism is a Kautskyist revisionist formula. If you talk to actual working class people, no one has any desire to see their workplaces nationalized, regardless of whether you think thats the "correct" way to do socialism.
Pure radlib nonsense. The workers want full control of their workplace. The fact that public sector workers have more control has more to do with the fact that public sector companies arent as laser focused on profitability as other companies, so they dont come down on unionization hard like other companies. Public sector companies arent benevolent institutions, their laxity is just a side-effect. They exploit workers just the same as any other company. Once again, workers don't want their companies nationalized, they want control over their workplace. Literally just talk to workers anywhere.
The state under a DotP is nothing like the state as it exists today. Marx made it very clear after the Paris commune that the existing instruments of the state must be fully destroyed and replaced with worker control. Nationalization under a DotP is nothing like state-ownership as it exists today.
It is decided by the working class how they will associate themselves.
What exactly was done in the past that we can learn from? The USSR was a social democracy. Cuba and NK follow the same model of "capitalism but the state owns everything and prices dont reflect labor content". All these countries, and all "AESC" today follow the same nonsense idea of "socialism=govt ownership". Leftists make the meme of "socialism is when the govt does stuff" and then proceed to unironically believe that as the path to socialism.
How exactly the working class will associate with themselves, what organizations will form, will be determined by themselves. Abolishing commodity production requires large-scale cooperation, it does not follow that the specific form of state-ownership is required for it.
Enterprises centralize for reasons of economy of scale. Socialism doesnt change this. I don't know why this is a complex or controversial idea for you.
Large corporations have the capital to keep themselves free of rules and regulations either through regulatory capture or just being able to absorb any "punishment" that might be directed towards them when not following rules that smaller businesses, not having the ability ability to exercise regulatory capture or absorb the punishments for violating the rules, have to follow. So the larger a business is the more efficiently it can evade or break the rules.
If the only competitive pressure is to generate more profits, then the only reason to merge with another larger corporation/business in the same field is just to show growth. When the cell phone companies merge, do the prices to the customers go down? When large lending institutions merge, do the loan rates drop for those seeking loans? Do the interest rates for CD' or deposit accounts increase? The trend that I'm aware of is, no. The quality of services/goods stays the same or decreases. I'm pretty confident that my guess is correct, when businesses merge it is usually not to provide "better" to employees or customers but to buy the profits of some other business.
I'm siding with the other comments that if something needs to become a monopoly to capture more efficiency to function, it shouldn't be a private business and instead be a utility.
Of course monopolies exist, but I was speaking in general. Like Amazon or Walmart or Exxon are huge firms but they are not monopolies. As a socialist, and at least under capitalism, I would rather firms be owned by workers rather than either capitalists or the state.