5 ms·

As an American I charge by the hour to service commercial and residential properties. My clients are mostly quite happy with my service. How is it that this i

As an American I charge by the hour to service commercial and residential properties. My clients are mostly quite happy with my service. How is it that this is "cryonyism"?

wahnfrieden 4y ago
You have no variable capital / are not a capitalist. You’re a laborer.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  TIL that an independent contractor with his own tools has no capital. LOL.
  - jaggederest 4y ago
    That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a "working stiff" even if you're making mid six figures in tech or as the owner of a small business. In "Wall Street" Gordon Gekko was talking about "400k-a-year working wall street stiffs", and that's a million a year or better these days, after inflation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        I'll have to remember this trick - when I don't understand the meaning of something, just say that the meaning is wrong and that they're being condescending I'll also have to remember that Capitalism is all about owning physical tools, not anything about making money from people doing work for you. So if I contract freelance kitchen staff to make and sell food for me, when they show up with their own knives, they are the capitalists, not me. Interesting!
        EarlKing 4y ago
        We were discussing a self-employed man, not someone who has employees. You're moving the goalposts again. I have to ask: Do you actually own a business? Have you ever worked for yourself? This sort of condescension isn't the sort of thing common among working men, but is very common among the petit bourgeoisie who think they know better than everyone else. I'm just curious.
        wahnfrieden 4y ago
        They asked about how their behavior is representative of capitalism, and learned it’s not. Your narrow description of capitalism would satisfy someone as radically anti capitalist as Bakunin Yes and yes, I’m a laborer and I wouldn’t take profits off someone else’s work unless we are all sharing the returns aka anarcho syndicalism. I can but won’t subject workers to the exploitation and role based hierarchies I myself escaped. It’s not necessary.
      - jaggederest 4y ago
        Not so hard to do, being a working man myself. Are you not a working man? My lived experience is that I have more in common with people flipping burgers than flying in private jets, but maybe you disagree.
        EarlKing 4y ago
        I am, and I do, and yet that still doesn't change that a man who works for himself is still a capital-owner, whatever class he may identify with. I'm all for independent business owners (including small family businesses) identifying with the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie, but pretending they're not bourgeoisie and sneering at people who disagree isn't going to incline anyone to listen to you.
    - quxbar 4y ago
      We castle and cathedral builders like to pretend there is great meaning in how we decide arrange the stones.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - m0llusk 4y ago
      Ownership of property and profit from labor are the foundations of Capitalism. Following capital as it trickles up is interesting but is only a part of the larger picture.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        Pretty funny! You would be a fan of Bakunin's anticapitalist anarchism even though you would still call that capitalism with that kind of definition

As an American I charge by the hour to service commercial and residential properties. My clients are mostly quite happy with my service. How is it that this is "cryonyism"?

wahnfrieden 4y ago

You have no variable capital / are not a capitalist. You’re a laborer.

EarlKing 4y ago
TIL that an independent contractor with his own tools has no capital. LOL.
- jaggederest 4y ago
  That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a "working stiff" even if you're making mid six figures in tech or as the owner of a small business. In "Wall Street" Gordon Gekko was talking about "400k-a-year working wall street stiffs", and that's a million a year or better these days, after inflation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      I'll have to remember this trick - when I don't understand the meaning of something, just say that the meaning is wrong and that they're being condescending I'll also have to remember that Capitalism is all about owning physical tools, not anything about making money from people doing work for you. So if I contract freelance kitchen staff to make and sell food for me, when they show up with their own knives, they are the capitalists, not me. Interesting!
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        We were discussing a self-employed man, not someone who has employees. You're moving the goalposts again. I have to ask: Do you actually own a business? Have you ever worked for yourself? This sort of condescension isn't the sort of thing common among working men, but is very common among the petit bourgeoisie who think they know better than everyone else. I'm just curious.
        wahnfrieden 4y ago
        They asked about how their behavior is representative of capitalism, and learned it’s not. Your narrow description of capitalism would satisfy someone as radically anti capitalist as Bakunin Yes and yes, I’m a laborer and I wouldn’t take profits off someone else’s work unless we are all sharing the returns aka anarcho syndicalism. I can but won’t subject workers to the exploitation and role based hierarchies I myself escaped. It’s not necessary.
    - jaggederest 4y ago
      Not so hard to do, being a working man myself. Are you not a working man? My lived experience is that I have more in common with people flipping burgers than flying in private jets, but maybe you disagree.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        I am, and I do, and yet that still doesn't change that a man who works for himself is still a capital-owner, whatever class he may identify with. I'm all for independent business owners (including small family businesses) identifying with the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie, but pretending they're not bourgeoisie and sneering at people who disagree isn't going to incline anyone to listen to you.
  - quxbar 4y ago
    We castle and cathedral builders like to pretend there is great meaning in how we decide arrange the stones.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - m0llusk 4y ago
    Ownership of property and profit from labor are the foundations of Capitalism. Following capital as it trickles up is interesting but is only a part of the larger picture.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      Pretty funny! You would be a fan of Bakunin's anticapitalist anarchism even though you would still call that capitalism with that kind of definition