Can small business owners join a working class movement?
Many farmers and low-income business owners face the same economic struggles as workers — we shouldn’t let them fall through the cracks.
While long hours and hard labor have always been inherent in agricultural work, the recent crashes in corn and wheat markets have left many farm owners struggling more than usual. They are sliding into poverty, getting saddled with debt, and receiving little to no income from the farm itself. Abnormally low milk prices are causing concern about a potential spike in suicide among dairy farmers.
The Wall Street Journal recently published this profile of two brothers in the Midwest, both farmers, who were reeling from the wild swing in agricultural markets. One brother went from grossing tens of millions of dollars per year to completely bankrupt, carrying over $60 million in debt: “I’ve been looking for a zipper at the back of my neck so I can peel out of my skin.”
Many farmers are now taking second and third jobs just to get by:
Off-farm work has become more important since a slump in prices for corn, wheat and other farm commodities over the past five years has cut total U.S. farm income in half. A few weeks ago, the USDA said income from farming is expected to fall further over the next decade. Currently, picking up work in construction or truck driving is required for many farmers to fund seed and fertilizer purchases, and keep current on loan payments for tractors and land. [WSJ]
Among small business owners in America, long hours, loads of debt, second jobs, and low incomes are not unique to agricultural industries. These owners likely do not recognize the privileges inherent in business ownership because they are faced with poverty and lack of healthcare similar to workers in the same income bracket. In fact, as we see with farmers seeking supplementary employment, they are sometimes still part-time workers.
Marx’s distinction between those that control the means of production and those who earn wages is an absolutely essential lens through which to understand capitalism. Understanding the difference between an owner/capitalist and a worker/wage-earner, and how those two categories relate to the capitalist structure, identifies the common interests with which we build a socialist movement.
But while this framework is foundational, socialists may be ignoring the nuances of actual Marxism in adherence to bifurcated class categories.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population. [Marx & Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party]
We cannot ignore the shades of grey found between and among classes. For example, white-collar and blue-collar workers have the same relation to capital, but significantly different material conditions under capitalism. Worker status should not merely serve to squash discussion about the inequities and ideological differences between income-levels. Instead, by recognizing these material differences — even when they cross narrowly-defined class boundaries — we can reveal crucial opportunities for our organizing.
Small business owners obviously benefit from a capitalist system in material ways even when they don’t report profits or personal wealth — autonomy, flexibility, and the free pursuit of interests are privileges of the capitalist class. They also are just as likely as large corporations, if not more so, to exploit labor with an added ability to escape certain legal ramifications. The crimes of the petit-bourgeoisie are well-documented and should never be diminished for the sake of a broader political base. In fact, antagonism against the culturally-revered “small business owner” should be a core component of worker radicalization.
However, this should be a productive, specific antagonism meant to transform the workplace and capitalist system — not an ideology devoid of empathy or hope of radicalization. Again, Marx himself saw the revolutionary potential of the petit-bourgeoisie when they abandon reactionary tendencies:
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The hope for radicalization of low-income small business owners lies first in one of the motivations behind starting small businesses: that regular jobs suck. The vast majority of small business owners (specifically those from the middle- and lower-classes) have had experience as a worker at some point, with negative experiences in a hierarchical workplace. Lacking class consciousness and exposure to political education, that experience transformed into a desire to replace themselves as boss instead of attempting to change the nature of work. Of course, many owners are motivated by the potential for hoarding profit and exerting control over workers — we should not be naive about the potential for change in these types of bosses. But with the first group, we could explore the possibility of redirecting the initial rebellion into energy for restructuring our economy and improving the lives of workers.
Another seed of radicalization is sown when low-income small business owners experience material struggles. Those who initially bought into the false promises of capitalism now find themselves unable to afford health insurance for themselves (if they ever were), frequently working 80 hours per week just to put food on the table, and saddled with crushing debt. Their material circumstances, even as owners, are often indistinguishable from low-income workers. There are, of course, contradictory class interests — but these are no more an obstacle to radicalization than the relative wealth of upper-class workers.
A socialist movement, purged of naivety and full of empathy, could build a net that catches the disillusioned and disenfranchised petit-bourgeoisie without excusing their anti-worker interests. While our capitalist political system turns members of the same income bracket against each other with zero-sum liberal policies — like minimum wage increases and health insurance mandates that keep low-income business owners in political opposition to workers — socialism should serve as an alternative. We have the imagination to build a wholly new system where a restructured economy lifts everyone out of poverty, removes the profit incentive, frees everyone for the pursuit of individual interests, and provides for all of our material needs.
Our movement has more to offer than the current capitalist system, and we need to find a way to communicate that without watering down our socialist analysis or throwing workers under the bus. We need a movement that is resilient and adaptable, recognizing the peculiarities of modern capitalism — which now includes small business owners operating as lower class traitors. Small business owners can either continue to sow discord among the lower classes, opposing progress because capitalism pits them against their neighbors, or they can fight for something new and, in many cases, benefit materially from doing so.
We, of course, should not advocate an uncritical incorporation of small business owners into a working class movement. DSA in particular has lacked an analytical view of small business owners in its ranks, and advocates reforms that ignore the complexities of small business ownership and employment. Instead, we should develop an analysis that compels low-income owners to reflect on their role in perpetuating an oppressive capitalist system, and help them understand how their own lives would improve under a socialist, planned economy. We can reroute the desire to escape traditional capitalist workplaces towards more class-conscious, co-operative pursuits while developing the political will to institute a planned economy. We don’t need to leave any members of the lower class behind.
Instead of ending with a prescription, here are some guiding questions:
When a farmer goes from millionaire to debtor overnight , might they understand the volatility of markets — and the destitution inflicted by them — better than a comfortable white-collar worker? How do we use these first-hand experiences to radicalize?
Where do small business owners with two part time jobs fit into black-and-white leftist messaging/analysis?
Is it any less possible to radicalize the poor petit-bourgeoisie out of ownership than rich workers into abolishing wealth? How might we accomplish both?
How do we pull everyone out of poverty, including poor owners, while prioritizing workers’ interests and condemning capitalist activities?
Co-authored by Andrew Larson (@axlroseemoji on Twitter)
