6 ms·

Capitalist vs laborer is a true dichotomy, in that one cannot be both simultaneously within one context. But it is important to remember these are embodied role

• qualudeheart 4y ago
  What about owner-operators? Truckers who own their own trucks are both laborers and capitalists.
  • uoaei 4y ago
    A truck is useless without a route. In the case of trucking, "the means of production" includes customer lead generation, driver dispatch, etc. Owning their truck only gives them the flexibility to switch employers more easily.
    • ddoolin 4y ago
      Agreed. But just as a thought experiment: what about a truck driver who owns their own trucking company, employs around a dozen other drivers, and also drives as one of its drivers? I would guess, theoretically, this is impossible past a certain size of enterprise, but in the meantime I would imagine that they would be both. A capitalist laboring as part of their own means of production.
      • int_19h 4y ago
        This thought experiment doesn't have to involve trucks: most small businesses involve owners working in some capacity, even if it's only managerial (but productive management is labor same as any other component that is required to produce the final product). Thus, they're being a laborer when they perform productive work, and they're being a capitalist when they pocket the wealth that business as a whole (i.e. all employers collectively, rather than just themselves) have generated. And if they don't actually do the latter, there's no economic exploitation involved.
        • uoaei 4y ago
          You said it better than I. I don't think I made my point about "context" sufficiently clear above. A person's capital can be earning more capital at the same time as they are employed in productive work, but not in the same context. An owner of a small business may "pay themselves a salary" in accordance the salaries of their employees, but that doesn't make them "not a capitalist" at any point in time insofar as they own the company and employ people to work at that company who do not own it.
      • thiagoharry 4y ago
        If the trucker is the owner of the trucking company, he do not get his money because of the labour, but because of capital. He could even pay someone to run the business, and as the capital owner, he would keep receiving money and profits. Even if he thinks that it is fun to drive the company truck and work with this, it does not change the fact that his means of income is not labor, but capital. Compare with a regular truck driver that if does not work, gets no money.
• pdonis 4y ago
  > Capitalist vs laborer is a true dichotomy, in that one cannot be both simultaneously within one context. Sure one can. One can be a "laborer" in the sense of spending one's working hours doing work for an employer instead of starting a startup or owning your own company, and also be a capitalist in that same context in the sense of using your skills as bargaining power with your employer to get the best return on the capital you own (in terms of your pay and benefits), and judging your employer's treatment of you on that basis. The inconvenient part is that, in the context of working for an employer instead of starting a startup or owning your own company, you are almost guaranteed to not be getting the best return on the capital you own; you have given up some return on capital (often a significant amount) in exchange for not having to manage business risks by yourself. Which in turn means you are exposing yourself to the risk of your employer deciding to manage their business risks by laying you off. But that's not because you're "labor" instead of "capital"; it's because you made a risk tradeoff that came back and bit you.
  • MarkMarine 4y ago
    > and also be a capitalist in that same context in the sense of using your skills as bargaining power with your employer to get the best return on the capital you own This is not what being a capitalist is, in the context you're using it. Capitalist vs laborer is basically someone who doesn't work, but their money does vs someone who has to work. That's it. Gets fuzzy when you start adding a 3rd group of people in there, the people who have to work (i.e. they don't have enough capital to generate the kind of income that puts them in the don't have to work crowd) but identity with the capitalists. They see themselves as removed from "laborers" and strive to be in the capitalist class, dress like them, act like them, talk like them. Marx would call them the petite bourgeoisie. I understand what you're trying to explain, thinking about individual capital ownership or even using your skills as capital... but that just isn't what it is. Your skills only have value if you're using them. To labor and create things of value.
    • jakeinspace 4y ago
      I believe the usual usage is: capitalist (noun): filthy rich monopoly man capitalist (adj.): pro capitalism