"Utter crap? Right back at you, and really, that’s all of a reply you deserve. When you learn how to avoid really piss poor fallacies (“you used ‘fruits of labor’ ergo you can’t have credible sources”), perhaps we can have a real conversation.
Perhaps it might be enlightening for you to realize that you clearly understand what I mean by “fruits of labor,” which is the point of - I dunno - communication. I use that phrase because it’s a well recognized convenience, it doesn’t come from theory. Sometimes, when explaining concepts, you have to use words or phrases that communicate with non-technical audiences. The fact that you understood completely what I meant means its use is justified.
Here you are missing the entire point. You are trying to answer a radically different question than the OP asked.
One is “Given a real-world economy which attempts but fails to reach the Marxian Ideal, what is the likely way in which a small business would form?” and the other, very different question is “How does small business work in an Ideal Marxian society.”
What you are doing rather the same as answering “how would Gandalf fight Nuzgal” with “well, Gandalf wouldn’t fight Nuzgal because neither wizards nor ring wraiths exist” - the OP himself has said that he’s asking about the framework Marx presented, which means that his question assumes the same assumptions Marx assumed. If you bothered to pay attention to the conversation, this would be obvious.
Learn your isms. If you honestly believe that capitalism (a loose economic order in which individuals are allowed free or at least nearly free enterprise) and feudalism (a hereditary, hierarchical socio-political organization wherein the desire for security from local threats is leveraged against property and labor) are one and the same, or even in any way derivative, you are living in a fantasy universe or just have no idea what those words mean.
Yes, a practical system requires compromise - usually to human nature, the laws of physics, available resources, technological limits, ect - but just saying this doesn’t mean that what was outlined lacks those compromises - in fact, you’ve failed completely to even specify what those compromises are.
And no, discussing a theory is not “ridiculous.” In order to effectively analyze a theory, you must at least understand how it works. If you don’t understand a theoretical system, you cannot know if it is feasible to implement.
No it isn’t, this is just your assertion. Yes, the system is less condusive to this (because things are strictly democratic, a group of people asking for limited resources is almost always going to get them over an individual) but there is nothing preventing an individual from launching an enterprise and growing it. What would not be allowed would be for that individual to continue collecting from that enterprise after he’s ceased laboring for it (that is, he can’t just be an “investor” or “owner” he must also do work in the business).
That doesn’t make any bloody sense. People might have higher wages, sure. But one, depending on the level of economic control the state choses to exercise, there may be quotas that require people to work 10 times harder rather than half as much. Two Having no capitalist class does not mean you have a smaller population - in fact, with less wealth concentration there will be more demand even with the exact same population (100 individual with 10k dollars buy 100 pairs of shoes, while 1 individual with $901k buys perhaps 2 pairs of really pricey shoes and the 99 families with 1k don’t buy any because that money is spent on food+shelter) and more aggregate demand means you’ll have a higher aggregate price level. Whether the price level outweights the increase in wages depends on many variables, but you cannot conclude that in all cases less work would be required.
The idea of more free time from a communist system is actually a byproduct of an ideal command economy. Rather than making 10k shoes because someone thinks shoes are a great business, the government orders 100 shoes because that’s all that “needs to be made.” Since the factory’s quota is 100 shoes, if it has say 10 workers then each worker is responsible for 10 shoes and gets paid for the production of 10 shoes rather than the hours spent on working for an indeterminate amount of shoes. Critics of free enterprise will say “since the worker gets paid for hours rather than production, he is incentivised maximize the amount of time it takes to produce one unit” wheras if he were paid by matching his quota, this would turn into “he is incentivised to minimize the amount of time” and the 4 hours it takes him to make his 10 shoes in this ideal command economy vs the 8 hours he’d work in a capitalist society leaves him with 4 hours of leisure. Or so the argument goes.
It has nothing to do with the capital class, except that the capital class is motivated to produce as many shoes as there exists a potential for profit.
This is a complete nonstarter, considering the context of the discussion. Did you honestly miss what the OP has been saying throughout the thread?
